Howdy Mark. I came across this list of mp3s of U.S. Air Force military bands playing Bach, Holst, etc. All these recordings are public domain, produced by the Air Force, and they're mp3s of good quality. But they're big, of course. (Venus, bringer of peace, is 7.8 megs). Is it a good idea for me to upload these to the Commons? What do you think? – Quadell ( talk) ( sleuth) 23:41, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
Raul, where are the rules about FAC elevation-- that is, what ratio of Supporting to Objecting votes an article needs to become featured? I can't find these rules. JDG 17:17, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Raul, this is not real urgent or anything, but if you've got a few minutes, I'd really like to have a word on IRC. -- Bishonen| Talk 17:54, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
How about IRC now? It's about a FAC. I would really like to touch base with you before I comment on it. -- Bishonen| Talk 18:18, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Well, clearly you and I disagree. I'm new around here, and I've been called a bit thickheaded in the past, so perhaps you're right. Perhaps Netoholic is not a vandal. But then, I'd like to know what we can do about him.
Netoholic is in arbitration. He is making pointless edits -- in addition to the ones he makes to prove a point. He is ignoring consensus -- it is not only I who have a problem with him, personally and professionally. His actions often do cause a chain-reaction of damage that extends into multiple areas of the project without control.
Even I can see that he knows he is on his way out, or at the very least on his way to a period of cooling-off. It's pretty plain he means to go out with a bang, and be sure he is remembered long after he departs.
It takes about ten times as long to clean up after just one of his stunts as it takes him to do it -- to revert the damage, to speak to him politely about it, to document it on a relevant Talk page, to document it again as evidence in his arbitration case, to caucus with other concerned users, on and on. None of this contributes substantially to the project. Netoholic is eating away at the bone and muscle of this community.
I am so thankful you have the elementary decency to identify yourself as a member of the power structure here. WP is so hierarchy-shy that it seems to be almost impossible to find out even who Jimbo Wales is. I don't like power-mad bureaucrats either, but I think we need some structure, and part of structure is knowing what that structure is.
Now that I have your attention, I should like to ask for a simple, emergency remedy for the situation. Please simply block Netoholic from editing, outright. If you can do it so that he can continue to edit in his own user space, I think that's fine; otherwise, so be it. Impose the block as soon as you can do so, and maintain it until the Arbitration Committee finishes deliberation on his case.
To make it absolutely clear that I seek no special advantage in any matter, and to demonstrate my perfect sincerity and good faith, I offer to accept a similar block, of similar duration and extent. You have my word that I will not meddle in the guise of a sock puppet, anonymous or otherwise; you should also block Xiong Sockpuppet, which I created only for the purpose of trying to workaround some browser display and CSS issues. I ask only for a word of explanation to be displayed on my User and Talk pages, so nobody wonders why I do not reply directly to their comments to me.
I have real work to do in this project, and I believe I have been a useful contributor in my small way. But I can get nothing done while cleaning up after Netoholic anyway, so if you accept this solution, I welcome it. If you feel you cannot in good faith do so, please refer me to the gentleman who might hear my plea. Thank You! —
Xiong
talk 08:38, 2005 Apr 5 (UTC)
Yeah, I had the vandal tell me that my impartiality was questionable because of the barnstar. :) Rick K 04:07, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
It's an honour to get a barnstar from the FAC-King (oh!) - thanks very much for that. Oo, my first one - put a smile on my face now! =) violet/riga (t) 14:19, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Hi Mark.
In light of the overall changes in the look and feel of the 'pedia with growing use of templates, and in consideration of some recent misunderstandings involving proposed policy, I created templates for {{notpolicy}}, {{semipolicy}}, {{rejected}}, and {{historical}} pages. If you're interested, I'd like to invite you to review both the wording of the templates themselves, and the matter of correct categorizaiton of the pages that use them. I mainly followed the existing categorization tags, which doesn't mean a whole lot since I was the one who placed them originally in many cases. I think some discussion and review (at least in a few cases) would be valuable, since I was mainly following tradition when I did the tagging.
The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:01, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Hi Mark,
what's your stance on having an article about a Wikimedia project promoted to FA status and having it featured on the Main Page? Over at Wikinews, we are considering to polish up the Wikinews article on Wikipedia to FA quality (with a decent history, description of the processes, quotes from example articles, statistics, etc.), in part to make more people aware of the project. Would you be opposed to that article eventually becoming featured like any other?-- Eloquence * 21:49, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
Zürich has been nominated on Wikipedia:Requested moves for a page move to Zurich. Perhapse you might like to express your opinion about this proposed move on talk:Zürich. Philip Baird Shearer 10:06, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Thought you might like this: http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Blue_Gene -- Slowking Man 23:44, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
I see that this article is slated for main page on April 11. Since the guy's birthdate is April 13, why don't you swap the article on April 11 with the April 13 article, and make the FA happen on his birthday? Just a thought -- JuntungWu 07:40, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Hey there. I've suggested at User talk:Violetriga/statusdevelopment that the tags on talk pages be made a more consistent design. It wouldn't make any process change to what happens for FA already. I'd be very grateful of any comments you could make. Thanks, violet/riga (t) 13:12, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Mark, thanks for scheduling Tamil language for April 14. -- Sundar ( talk · contribs) 05:51, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
Could you please archive the next time you delete old items. I couldn't find the answer to a question I just posted yesterday. Mgm| (talk) 09:20, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
I like Violet's idea. Do you think it's a good idea to hold a poll/vote over the idea and if it passes have a design contest? This way both Violet and JDG get what they want. Overall look would be more consistent and JDG could suggest another look. And not in the least, we'd have a wider consensus. Mgm| (talk) 19:55, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
It would be so wonderful to always have edit summaries to read. Hyacinth 03:35, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Many thanks for reverting the vandalism on my page. I don't always mind a little vandalism: the way I see it, it's just nice to be noticed... Judging from his history, it looks like he was going alphabetically down the list of admins. Thanks again! – Clockwork Soul 03:36, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I think Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios could make a great featured article. It doesn't quite meet the requirements yet, but it could with a little work. In light of the debates and cases about digital piracy and the obligations of hardware/software creators, the affirmation/modification/elimination of the Sony precedent is a key issue for the future of information technology.
Since you've worked on the article in the past, feel free to take another look to bring it "up to code" for a nomination. Feco 21:05, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I made , a spoken version of Timpani, for Wikipedia:WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia. Timpani is the April 13th FA. Would you like to link it from somewhere? User:Luigi30 ( Υσηρ ταλκ ΛυηγηΛ) 23:25, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Can we not have any related to UK politics featured on the front page during the UK general election campaign? I think it might make Wikipedia look like it's endorsing the Conservatives (or alternatively endorsing Labour by reminding people of Thatcher). JuntungWu 10:57, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC) UK elect
Would Saturday 4 June and Sunday 5 June work for you? Or even the weekend before that? -- mav 13:56, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
At the NASA meatball page, you wrote that you had contacted NASA for permission to use the meatball. It would be very nice to be able to use it in the NASA copyright tag (see discussion), so I wonder if you ever got an answer and if the permission applies to all of Wikipedia. Jonas Olson 22:40, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Any idea why the date was changed to June?
Please list all your available dates in the table at Wikipedia:Meetup/Wikipedians of the East Coast field trip#Date. Thanks. -- brian0918 ™ 18:34, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for your support on my RfA! Not *quite* sure what I did to earn such an enthusiastic response, but I shall attempt to put the shiny new buttons to good use. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 20:14, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Mark, what do we do about a really bizarre user that is up on an RfC? I'm referring to User:SamuraiClinton. He was at one point the "Mr. Suffix" vandal and then created a user name. He has not only done some of the strangest edits I've ever seen since then, he's created a sockpuppet account at UserSuperDude115. This individual has completely ignored all attempts for us to help him. Would you take a look at his RfC and his contributions and let me know if an ArbCom is warranted? Help! - Lucky 6.9 03:34, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This article is just made-up nonsense; what should I do about it? I'm not a sysop. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Father_Damien XavierLucinius
I just wanted to draw your attention to the idea of posting a much shorter spoken introduction in concert with the "Today's featured article" section on the main page tomorrow. Thanks! Demi T/ C 08:24, 2005 Apr 20 (UTC)
Hi. I just was wondering why you removed the Gowanus Canal nomination from the featured article candidates page, but left the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs nomination which is older. Thanks. -- Howrealisreal 18:33, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Just curious how you know that edit was Lir. Snowspinner 23:10, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
Could you promote Kalimpong to a Featured Article today? I will be away for a week or two starting tomorrow, and I would like to have the satisfaction of knowning that the article is featured. I nominated it last saturday (maturing time will be this sunday) and it has got 10 direct supports and 0 objects. Thanks. = Nichalp ( talk · contribs)= 14:14, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
Well, I wouldn't blame ITN that much. Lately, DYK has been rather inconsistent in length, too. I have been trying to keep Sel. Anns. at 12 to 16 lines (on my screen) but it's tough maintaining it sometimes. :-(
Since you asked, I won't move the midline on the MainPage again, unless I really have to. (But I do want to know: why not ?) Glad that someone besides me is actually watching over things. -- PFHLai 23:37, 2005 Apr 22 (UTC)
Hi, I wonder why 3 to 3 is a reject. Mav proposition has been attempted, a mediation did not work, it was left ignored... this is not only a content issue. Coolcat hasen't stopped yet! He deletes my posts on articles talk-pages... archivate posts made hours ago etc... The number of people having decided to add their names has grown, and now the thing get rejected, there has been a great deal of evidences, and more to come. Fadix 02:09, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The DC Meetup date has been finalized to May 7/8. Even if you can only come one of the days, that's still fine. Please watch this page for new details, which will be posted in the next couple days: Wikipedia:Meetup/Wikipedians of the East Coast field trip -- brian0918 ™ 16:11, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Hello, Raul, er.. Mark. What is repulsive about it? And how can it be improved so as to be acceptable to your fine standards of decency and integrity? - SV| t| add 23:36, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Hm. I use firefox too, and I dont get a bottom slider. At 30px high it only shows the up and down arrows, which IMHO looks alright. Maybe its the width setting, or the text setting. Do you mind giving me a little direct fb sometime later? I agree its a bit much, but AFAICT the Requests links on RC dont work at all anyway. I had thought maybe a bigger list would attract more interest more regularly. If only for users to customise for themselves - SV| t| add 01:04, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
SV: |
Appreciate that you're watching out for vandalism on AAAI! =D - SocratesJedi | Talk 02:28, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I just wanted to say hello. Sorry about the intrusion on the Arbitration of Netoholoic. Are you filipino? hispanic? Habla espanyol? Do still remember the Bigfoot spoof on the greenhouse image? I work as reporter here in Japan.-- Jondel 11:18, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oh its no big deal really. There's enough fish in the ocean to not have to take things too seriously.I saw that you are studying both electronics and biology? Amazing. Have you encounetered bio-perl? Bio informatics. I wish I could study that. I have lots of crazy but sound ideas. -- Jondel 00:00, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Hi Raul, I added my Mallika Sherawat link (mallikasherawat.org) to the Mallika Sherawat page on wikipedia but it was blocked by you. Was I doing something wrong? Sorry I was not aware of it as being wrong. Is there a possibility in getting unblocked? :(
Regards, Faizan
Thanks Raul. I really appreciate this. :) I will make sure I read the rules next time before adding anything else.
Raul,
Please accept my apologies for the factual error on my contribution last week to the Signpost, The Report On Lengthy Litigation. This is my first week filling in for Michael Snow, and a bit overzealously I submitted what (I had intended) to be a preliminary draft late Thursday night. Unfortunately, other unforseen obligations prevented me from updating it, and in the days following there was a spate of activity which was therefore unaccounted for.
Unfortunately, it is too late in the week to alter the article; however, in the upcoming edition I will not only account for the changes but will prominently note my mistake to make clear that I was, in fact, in error. I hope you will pass along my apologies to the ArbCom and any who were offended by my unacceptable haste. Wally 01:32, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Template:Medical, Template:Portal, Template:Project usage -- mav 04:27, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Hi Raul,
I thought the conclusion of the discussion on multi-stubbing was that if it would help the appropriate editors get to the article it was useful (as long as there aren't more than two).
Sometimes it's very difficult to determine which stub is more appropriate for an article, and it could easily be sought out by people interested in more than one subject, and yet it's not a common enough case for a new stub category.
If there's a different protocol for this, please let me know -- I'll be happy to adhere to it.
-- Avocado 18:20, 2005 Apr 30 (UTC)
I apologize. I figured that because of the widespread controversy it deserved at least a mention. Will not be added again. ekimdrachir 00:49, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
Netoholic is listed as an involved party at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Xiong, Xiong vs Netoholic. You are noticed as Netoholic's mentor.
Please note that this is not a hostile request for further findings against Netoholic. I am content with ArbCom's current findings and am happy that he and I go peacefully and do not tread on each other's toes. — Xiong 熊 talk * 01:52, 2005 May 1 (UTC)
Hey, what's up with meetup planning? You emailed, I responded, and I haven't heard anything since. Isomorphic 06:08, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
Hiya Raul, I notice you (accidentally) removed categories from some templates. Could you watch out when pasting in the new template design that you don't remove them please! :) Talrias ( t | e | c) 08:10, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
I've noticed you changed Template:Cleanup to look like ClockWorkSoul's design in the contest. The thing is, that the cleanup template isn't part of the contest and with the not subst: use of the template its image could hog the server.
Also, I personally think there's no need to make the template larger and more obstrusive than it needs to be. Would you mind reverting or at least making it a little less in your face? Mgm| (talk) 11:01, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
A few worries about this:
It's not that I'm saying that you've got it all wrong, but you need to give citations and more information. Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 17:15, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
Ah, sorry — I'll try to contact the anon. Otherwise, I'm inclined to delete it as a hoax of some kind. Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 17:28, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
Hello, Raul654. How bad do you want Polish Constitution of May 3, 1791 as the featured article tomorrow? It's already an Selected Anniversary, and there aren't that many to choose from on May 3. It's Constitution Day in both Poland and Japan on this day. I think it will not be nice to feature the constitution of one country but not the other, and I don't want to take both out of Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/May 3. Can you help ? -- PFHLai 21:53, 2005 May 2 (UTC)
Incidentally, I agree that most articles improve while on the Main Page. If there is an error in the facts presented, it is good for everyone to have the ability to correct it on the spot. But I'm preaching to the choir. 205.217.105.2 22:31, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
Personal opinion: I think that this page move crossed the line. User:Xiong's article deserves to be in the Wikipedia namespace as a Wikipedia thinktank article just as much as his Wikipedia:Meta-templates considered harmful. It is long-winded, and it does cover things that probably don't belong in the article. On the other hand, for those who are visually oriented, it gives a good idea of how transclusion works, and it does a better job of covering the problems of using templates instead of just focusing on the problems of meta-templates. BlankVerse ∅ 01:29, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
IИ SФVIET ЯUSSIA JOKE MAKES YOU !!!< | ||
This prize is for given to those that have made the bestest IИ SФVIET ЯUSSIA jokes on IRC #wikipedia. So, The Party Degrees that Komrade Raul654/archive6 is being awarded with the Red Flag of the Motherland! AAAAH! MOTHEЯLAИD!!! Komrade Raul654/archive6, we salute you! DA! |
Project2501a 01:43, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
Please add this page to your Watch list, and feel free to bring any relevant discussion there. -- Netoholic @ 00:19, 2005 May 5 (UTC)
Unfortunately not--I fly back to Chicago for the summer that very day. I'll look for you guys from the plane, though. Anyway, hope all goes well and give my warm wishes to all who can make it. Meelar (talk) 18:20, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
Hey, it was cool meeting you in DC. See you around. — thames
Thanks for putting Francis Petre on the main page today, I appreciate it. Having seen the quick and efficient way the multiple vandalism was dealt with today, I am "almost" coming around to your view on protecting (or not protecting) the main page. Thanks again its great to see a relatively, globally, obscure individual have a few moments of fame. Giano | talk 19:26, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
Please update the m:Www.wikipedia.org template. It's not fair how a language bearing a Wikipedia with, for example, 232 articles is not listed on the same template a language bearing a Wikipedia with, for example, 111 articles is. It's also seen as racism directed at the speakers of these languages, and/or thinking that the languages are not real.
Here are the HTML tags - all you have to do is copy them to the template:
Georgian (ქართული) wiki: ka - 768 articles Armenian (Հայերեն) wiki: hy - 542 articles Bengali (বাংলা) wiki: bn - 454 articles Macedonian (Македонски) wiki: mk - 354 articles Northern Sami (Sámegiella) wiki: se - 283 articles Breton (Brezhoneg) wiki: br - 232 articles Ossetian (Ирон æвзаг) wiki: os ( http://os.wikipedia.org) - 218 articles Tok Pisin wiki: tpi - 105 articles
To incorporate them, type [http://{{ISO CODE}}.wikipedia.org {{NATIVE NAME FOR LANGUAGE}}. [[User:NazismIsntCool|{{ NazismIsntCool/sig}} Nazism isn't cool]] 07:30, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
With Wikipedia receiving featured status, how could I not write about it in my signpost article? The nomination mentioned 2 previous FACs and two PR requests. Are there any other nominations and PR requests that aren't documented as well, I should know about? Mgm| (talk) 13:54, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
I don't know if I still tell you these things, or if it's handled by someone else (or on a particular page), but the "recently featured" list for the Main Page is wrong--it doesn't list Samantha Smith, even though she was yesterday's featured article. According to the May archive, it appears that her article was not included in the list for tomorrow or the next day either. I'd fix it myself, but I suspect I'd screw it up, and anyway I'm positive you'll be much faster at it than I am. Thanks, Jwrosenzweig 00:36, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
I've been doing some impostor hunting lately, seeing as how we've had a rash of them lately and all, and you got the following hits: RauI654 ( talk · contribs). Of course, this may be nothing, but I thought I would let you know. – Clockwork Soul 05:12, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
I just thought suddenly: whom I can always count to do his work on Wiki? Silently, in the background, while we mess around on FAC and related, there is Raul654, withouth whom the FA would be...well, most likely wouldn't be. So...
I, Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk do hereby, and with all due and deserved ceremony, award you, Raul654 a The Working Man's Barnstar for your excellent and unending work regarding keeping featured article candidates and related up and running. It is hugely appreciated. Thank you. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 01:28, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
So, dear mentor, how long must we put up with this? The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:07, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
Hi Mark,
Just to let you know that your photo Image:Lincoln statue.jpg is making a reappearance as Pic of the Day on the 19th. I've used the previous caption, but you can make any changes at Wikipedia:Picture of the day/May 19, 2005 - Solipsist 08:23, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
I am so sorry I couldn't make Brickskeller! I had a minor pet crisis that I had to deal with and it kept me busy all night. Did y'all have fun? · Katefan0 (scribble) 15:06, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
I don't feel that being a party to a revert war is a very good way to "mentor" me. If anyone have an issue with my edit, and I'm not explaining myself well, it is your responsibility to help me communicate. I think this applies if it is you that has an issue. Why didn't you try to talk to me first? Why didn't you make any use of the Talk page before reverting me? I hope you can see how I'm confused as to how you're going to help me on an on-going basis if you're not following the mentorship process. Neither you nor Firebug (which I reported to you as being a thorn in my side) made any attempt to discuss my edit. I made use of the talk page at the time I made the change in the first place (see Template talk:Notpolicy#Wording and formatting). I'm doing my part already. -- Netoholic @ 16:45, 2005 May 13 (UTC)
Don't I get any acknowledgment that I've already complied with this? I pointed a link where I documented my reasons for the change. Firebug reverted out of spite against me, and didn't comment on Talk. You reverted probably in good faith, but failed to use the talk. At least Uninvited used the talk page. As I said, I'm doing my part using the hell out of talk pages. I wish you'd give me credit or benefit of the doubt before laying down restrictions. And please lead by better example and use freaking talk pages yourself. -- Netoholic @ 19:23, 2005 May 13 (UTC)
Are you going to vote in the new poll (right where they deleted the majority support vote) or are you going to boycott on principle? - Tεx τ urε 17:32, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
Why were our "defensive" comments "cleaned up", while the original "accusations" ("There are two users who have taken a rather obsessive stance with regards to me.") were left intact? - Omegatron 18:55, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
Paul Beardsell edited the Proposed decision page of the arbitration case. My comment [1], diff [2], please read it before voting on case, the last principle was added by him. Tkorrovi 12:02, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
I don't know if you've noticed it yet, but User:Levzur has put Bagrationi and Democratic Republic of Georgia both back on the FAC page. In reviewing my own comments on the DRG nomination, I found someone else (I haven't investigated the page history yet) had put strikeouts through four of my objections that, after reviewing the article today, still stand. slambo 15:31, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
Much appreciated. Pcb21| Pete 21:35, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
Hi Mark,
Knowing that you have more than a passing interest in military history, can you take a look at the second para on the caption for Wikipedia:Picture of the day/May 22, 2005. The fact that nearly all active deployments of paratroopers in combat have been a disaster, is something that I vaguely recall from a documentary I may have seen years ago, so it could do with a second opinion. -- Solipsist 20:24, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
Like before, would you please look through my DC pics and see if there anything feature worthy there. →Raul654 06:42, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
Hi; I'm sorry to be bothering you concerning this, but Wikipedia:Chess championship is up for a VfD. Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Chess_championship Please vote to keep this thing alive... this is so lame that I need to ask people to help out here. Linuxbeak | Desk 03:43, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
In the finding of fact (Tkorrovi and Paul Beardsell case) only 1 out of 10 personal attacks mentioned was by me and even this was about how I named his Paul Beardsell's personal attack against me. And as a remedy, I was proposed to be indefinitely banned from editing the article. This is severely unjust, any punishment must be proportional to the misconduct. You give me an indefinite ban for a single comment, equal to indefinite ban to Paul Beardsell for numerous personal attacks against me during a year, which, as you see, I did not reply with personal attacks, except maybe only once (I'm human), in spite of everything which I might feel, I think this is civil behaviour. I'm going to be punished for attacks made against me. Tkorrovi 17:37, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
An alternative to deletion of Template:Sisterproject. Doing double transclusion, as Jamesday and Tim Starling have both said, is a drain on system resources. On the other hand, having some consistent guide to similar templates (such as the sister projects or the stub templates) is a good idea (you should have seen all the different designs for topic stubs before template:metastub and template:metapicstub were created). Whether this style guide is another template that is "subst:" when the new template is created, or copied-and-pasted (as Netoholic has insisted is the only way to do it) is debatable. My own opinion is that the copy-and-paste method will mean that it will be much less likely to be used and be more likely to result in non-matching templates.
The alternative: Add some explanation text to the design template that will explain how it should be used, and prevent it from being used in double transclusion. For example: for the metastub template, the text might be something like:
After creation of each design template with the additional text, each one should then be protected from further modification. BlankVerse ∅ 10:42, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
Raul, I noticed your comments re "User:Netoholic/Mentoring cleanup" above, could you clear up a little further? Where it says on the page, "This section is only to be used to report ongoing problematic editing by Netoholic", I asked a few days ago if I don't get to list ongoing problematic editing by others (relevant to Netoholic) anywhere. I also mentioned a current instance (current then). You got any comment? Seems to me ongoing stuff apparently designed (for example) to provoke Netoholic can be important to report.-- Bishonen | talk 06:15, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
Hi Raul - any objection to my moving Bigleaf hydrangea to its scientific name at Hydrangea macrophylla? The species has several common names (Bigleaf, French, Hortensia, Lacecap, Mophead), none with any noticeably greater currency than any other, so I think the scientific name is the best/most useful. Also the majority of the 100 Hydrangea species don't have any English name at all, and if/when these get individual pages (inevitably at their scientific name), the one listed at an English name would be out of sync. - MPF 13:35, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
Looks like you uploaded Image:Millie and Barbara Bush.jpg but didn't give source or copyright status--could you update that, pretty please? Thanks. Elf | Talk 20:29, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
Hmm. OK, thanks. Elf | Talk 21:20, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
Articles which users reverted my edits. -- Cool Cat My Talk 23:35, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
I am tired of dealing with this. I am open for suggestions. --
Cool Cat
My Talk 23:38, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
We don't have any set policy I can point to. IMO if their leaving adminship was truly voluntary--i.e., they left because they were on extended Wikivactaion, or didn't think they could keep up with the task (though that doesn't both a lot of current less active admins) they should have it back for the asking. After all, admins just go inactive, are listed as inactive, then say "I'm back" and resume their active status and noone challenges it.
OTOH, if they left in a storm ("taking my marbles and leaving," etc.) maybe they should stand new.
How about this? Since it is bureaucrat's job to decide on adminship, returning admins could ask any bureaucrat to reinstate them. Then that bureaucrat would need two other bureaucrats to agree, and then just do it. If any bureaucrat disagrees, they stand for seven days.
We could avoid this whole thing if we ask Anthere and Angela not to deadmin voluntarily--just list them inactive. If an admin is removed "for cause" or insists on being de-admined anyway, start them all over again for 7 days. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 00:33, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
Hey, Raui! I will start translating the Hebrew article on Gonen tonight. Danny 09:58, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
You recently removed grunge music from Wikipedia:Featured article candidates without any explaination for whether it failed or became a featured article. Please respond on the article's talk page. -- LGagnon 20:24, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
I have mprotected Image:Senate chamber.JPG for tomorrow. This file comes from the Wikimedia Commons. Gdr said the file there has to be protected, too. (See this on my talk page.) I am not an Admin at the Commons, so I can't protect the file from that end. Could you protect it, please ? Thanks. -- PFHLai 00:37, 2005 May 26 (UTC)
"Blanking, per arbcom clarification decision." I'll accept the arbcom decision, but would be grateful if you could provide a link. — Itai ( f&t) 10:50, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
Raul - thanks for your help with settling this. Could you unprotect
Template:Commonscat? Looks like a casualty.
Also, I still would like to turn Template:sisterproject into something useful, and I've made a mock-up. I'll probably archive all the old "meta-template" discussion on the talk page of that template, and go in this new direction (since it's a handy page name). -- Netoholic @ 13:14, 2005 May 26 (UTC)
Shmuel Gonen. Danny 12:06, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
Hello,
I’m a historian working at the Center for History and New Media at George Mason University ( http://chnm.gmu.edu/) and we are very interested in digital historical works, including people writing history on Wikipedia. We’d like to talk to people about their experiences working on articles in Wikipedia, in connection with a larger project on the history of the free and open source software movement. Would you be willing to talk with us about your involvement, either by phone, a/v chat, IM, or email? This could be as lengthy or brief a conversation as you wish.
Thanks for your consideration.
Joan Fragaszy
jfragasz at gmu dot edu
Hi Raul, I wanted to reply to your comment. I actually am working with several professors in the history department for their own study on the history of the free and open source software movement. We would like to include peer-produced works of history, with articles on Wikipedia and digital genealogy projects as the most familiar examples. This study is part of a larger project on the history of science, technology, and industry. You can read more about it on our website: http://echo.gmu.edu. Please feel free to contact me with any questions you have about our intentions. Best regards, Joan Fragaszy.
Hi. To let you know, I have replied to your concerns at my RFA. ✏ OvenFresh ² 18:37, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
Hi Mark,
Its probably on your watchlist, but I thought you would be interested in the additions I made to the Wikipedia:Copyright FAQ about the rights and restrictions affecting photographers, which whilst not strictly anything to do with copyright nevertheless appear to be closely related frequently asked questions.
The link to the UK guide is really helpful and covers a wide range of issues in concise summary. The US link is OK, but seems to be more confrontational and doesn't cover some of the issues relating to photographing artwork. Do you know of a better short guide for US photographers.
Both are quite good about addressing recent issues with subjects which are thought to be of interest to terrorist. I was recently threatened by a couple of police women for taking a photograph in a London underground station, so those sections were of particular interest to me. -- Solipsist 18:50, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
Hello, I just wanted to remind you about the aforementioned page. When you remove an admin candidate from RfA, it should then be added to current administrators and recently created admins, or unsuccessful candidacies as appropriate. I added Wonderfool to the latter.
My condolences on your mentorship. — Ben Brockert (42) UE News 02:00, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
Hi! I noticed that you intended to add a media file to the article Dmitri Shostakovich, but the link there doesn't seem to actually link to a media file... Perhaps a mistake? -- KittySaturn 04:10, 2005 May 27 (UTC)
Hi, Raul654, thanks for your comment. Please see my response on my talk page. The short answer, is by accident. Sorry, about that. I would never, nor have I ever, intentionally follow a well thought-out edit summary with an edit summary-less one. El_C 10:12, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you again, but I submitted the edit with the summary, yet it ins't registering. The edit summary read (I still have the page open) : Raul, you can delete it elsewhere (though perhaps it should be exapnded there). We arrived at consensus on the talk page to note it in the Lead, as an important development. Danny, what do you think?
El_C 10:31, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
I suggested Link (Legend of Zelda) for the Main Page some time ago on Wikipedia talk:Tomorrow's featured article, and you told me there were too many unsourced, fair use images, and I pretty much forgot about it. However, with User:Master Thief Garrett, I removed a few superfluous images, properly tagged the other ones and added source information (including the emulator used to take the OoA screenshot). The lead picture was changed to include a promotional picture for the upcoming Twilight Princess, and I've tried to replace pictures found on third party sites with images directly from Nintendo's site. Is there any hope it could be put on the main page now? Phil s 16:46, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
Hi, Raul, I hope you liked the Gonen article. I have to say that regarding the dispute with ElC, I tend to agree with him. The revelations about Kippur really shook up Israeli society, and continue to reverberate today, especially in regard to the people's trust of the political system. It is a very essential aspect of the war and should be reiterated. Just my $0.02. Danny 01:09, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
Take a look at Template talk:WikiProject Polish Army. Halibu tt 05:26, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
Yo. I accidentally overwrote one of your images on Commons. It gave me the "changing filename" warning, and I didn't notice that it was also giving an "already exists" warning. Anyway, I overwrote Image:National Museum of African Art.jpg, so if you want to upload yours again over mine, go ahead. Sorry about this. Isomorphic 07:44, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
Good sir, I am writing to ask for the long awaited advancement of Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Starfleet ranks and insignia to Featured article status. In the second nomination the following items were handled:
I feel Ive done everything possible to make this into a featured article candidate. I now have five supports and one object and the object I beleive was handled. I left a message on the Users talk page asking him to confirm, but this was 4 days ago and I have heard nothing.
I also apologize for the nasty debate which occured. The user who started it I feel had no good intentions and was arguing against the very existence of the article. I see it as a society article, speaking of ranks and insignia and how this production franchise has incorporated them over the past forty years. It is a good article and deserves recognition. Can we advance now to FA? Thanks. - Husnock 08:15, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
Hi. Please look at my reply to your request on my talk page. Thank you Almog 10:51, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
At one place, you've written "I've starting writing". Please change it to "I've started writing". -- Sundar ( talk · contribs) 10:56, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
Hi Raul... was wondering when this FA will be placed on the front page? His birthday falls on June 3rd so this might be a good date to do it. Cheers... Zerbey 17:12, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I think User:70.93.214.48 may be impersonating you. → JarlaxleArtemis 00:39, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
Oops. Never mind. Your edits temporarily disappeared from the Talk:Main Page edit history for some reason. They're back now. → JarlaxleArtemis 00:43, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
You've got it wrong, I did not vote oppose because it failed.... I cannot in good faith, based on my experiences, vote support for that nomination. If a RFDa process were in place, I would at least move to Neutral. Surely, you're not really trying to make an argument that my lone vote is disruptive of Wikipedia, even if I was trying to make a point. -- Netoholic @ 03:31, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)
Raul, I don't know where to ask. My password for the account of the same name on Tamil wikipedia has been cracked and the e-mail address is also probably changed. Because I haven't received the e-mail giving new password that I requested for. Please do something about it. There are several evidences linking this user id in en wikipedia with that. Also it has been linked to my e-mail id (sundarbecse in yahoo domain), since I've e-mailed User:Ravidreams on both the Tamil wiki and the English wiki. Also, since I'm an admin there (and also here) it needs to be blocked immediately before any damage is done. -- Sundar ( talk · contribs) 05:19, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
I suppose it is possible that it could be related to the maintence that was going on last night and/or the password salting. Either way, it sounds like you guys are OK now. →Raul654 06:15, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
on my talk page! I got all obsessed with the Deep Throat revelation and revised almost anything that linked to it. I hate red links! Now I better get back to my day job! Jokestress 08:46, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Hello, is it possible to change the background color of the to-do template to a more neutral color like light blue or light grey?-- Witkacy 12:00, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
style="background:#efefef;
efefef are three hexademical values coding for Red, green, and blue. FFFFFF is white, and 000000 is black. A moderately lighter grey would be (for example) F7F7F7. →Raul654 12:06, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
PS - RGB color model explains it in more detail. →Raul654 12:08, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
I do not understand how FAC works. I understood that an article would not be promoted while there were valid objections. I believe that there are sourcing omissions in this article and made that objection.
Peter (the "author"/sponsor) said that the sourcing was fine so I indicated where I felt there were some specific omissions. I can see that I updated the
FAC subpage just after you had promoted the article but at the time of promotion there was the open question "Anything missing?" from Peter. Have I misunderstood the process? Is it another consensus mechanism? --
Theo
(Talk) 18:57, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Have you overlooked my questions? --
Theo
(Talk) 23:17, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Whoops! Sorry, I meant to get back to you. The FAC, like most pages, works on consensus, and consensus is not unanimity. Basically, when I promote nominations, I look to see that a nomination has a certain minimum number of supports (usually at least 4), and that it has "a lot" of support (e.g., that most people - figure in the neigborhood of three quarters - support it), and that there aren't any "serious" objections. A serious objection is an objection along that lines that an article is heavily biased, or factually inaccurate, or that it is (or contains) a copyright violation. Something like this is enough to veto a nomination. In the case of the swedish language nomination, I saw a lot of support, and a handful of suggestions/objections (almost all of which were struck out), but I didn't see anything that I thought was serious. →Raul654 23:45, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
Thank you. My confusion clears: I had misunderstood the process. Theo (Talk) 07:13, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Hey Raul - Jguk is using a bizarre scheme whereby 'articles' (template container pages, really) are built using transclusion (not unlike the FAC page). What's worse is he is using the wikipedia:namespace from WikiProject subpages to hold article prose and then linking directly to that from the headings on the container page. For an example see: 2005 English cricket season (8-30 April) (a page he is putting through peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/2005 English cricket season (8-30 April)/archive1 with the intent of finishing it up before FAC). Please add your input on this practice at Wikipedia talk:Template namespace#transcluding prose. -- mav 21:27, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thanks :) -- mav 23:01, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Image:Habitat for Humanity logo.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. User:Raul654 ( talk) 13:04, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
-- The logo is obsolete now, replaced with Image:Hfh logo new.jpg -- MC MasterChef 12:18, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The image you asked about ( Image:New community on the Golan .jpg) was not added by me, but by User:Leifern. Yuber (talk) 13:28, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Hi Raul,
Apologies for bothering you in this way. My password (I'm actually Tempshill) stopped working several days ago, and the "E-mail me the password" button doesn't work. At Wikipedia:Help Desk, someone dropped your name; apparently there have been password problems for a few other people as well recently. Thanks for any help you can offer -- Tempshill2 17:04, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Now that you have taken my advice and started staying away from controversial topics - have you found your editing here more pleasant and enjoyable? →Raul654 23:52, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
I don't know enough to even begin talking about this, but you do - I was flipping through some pages when the Gamefaqs article caught my eye. So much of the entry is simply going on about their individual forums and jargon. I know other, less notable, pages have caught crap for this (especially the Kenzerco forums), but is Gamefaqs large enough to be notable? plz comment thx bye 216.158.31.195 20:02, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I noted all the suggestions on the talk page and edited the definiton to include them all. Then it is reverted without comment or discussion! Please discuss the article Sci guy 01:45, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
![]() |
Your
Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for
featured picture status,
Image:Clivia miniata1.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates.
|
Congrats! -- Spangineer ( háblame) 01:53, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks a bunch for fixing the link I was placing on The Star Spangled Banner. I missed the description tag, but I hope a recording like what I made will work for the encyclopedia. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 01:58, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thank you :)
Unfortunately, my life has been a bit crazy lately, so I haven't been able to email it within half an hour of 0:00 UTC every day (I'm sometimes a couple hours late :$). Hopefully things will clear up by the end of the month, and I'll be able to be on time more consistently :)
Thanks again for your message, I really appreciate it a lot. Take care! - Frazzydee| ✍ 14:06, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
(re: Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates#Extremely important problem!)
I think it's not the templates that are broken...
If you look at the generated source in the example you've given ( libertarianism), you can see the {{{1}}} is being expanded on the link, but not within the id attribute.
This makes me think of a recently fixed security bug, where the expansion of a template could be used to bypass the HTML filters. I saw it first at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#What was that?, which gives a date (yesterday) and a bug number ( 2304).
If the date matches with your experience, that could be that the cause (a side effect of the fix); I have not looked at the code, but I can guess the parts of the code involved in both the security fix and the recent template problems are the same.
-- cesarb 17:40, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the match. I was only a bit annoyed by the community pressure. You played a superb game and what kills me the most in hindsight was blocking my queen-side bishop with my queenside knight prematurely. SDSUPinoy 19:59, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Hello, just curious as to how you go about selecting FA's for the main page. Phoenix2 01:45, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I don't have sources for the questions you raise. Adam 06:28, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Good call on that one. It's probably one of my favourite, if not the favourite, works in the Western canon. Are you ever on AIM anymore? I need to talk to you. 216.158.31.195 18:55, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It is sort of surprising I guess, which is why I thought it would be interesting to include... I must disagree with you about "it's a bit of a stretch to categorize Benedict as an author". As Cardinal Ratzinger he kept up an incredible rate of writing and publishing. I'm not talking about internal Church stuff-- I mean books you can find on Amazon. He's authored or co-authored around 50 commercially sold books. In fact, you can see here that he's even been making some bestseller lists. JDG 20:33, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for noticing. Yes, things are getting better, though I've been less active lately as well. Been dealing with a growingly active Simple: Wikipedia. The stress around that meta-template junk was a major factor and now that it's "gone", I'm better. Thanks for your help with that. -- Netoholic @ 22:54, 2005 Jun 7 (UTC)
About the Damascus by night picture. Being a newbie and given the little time I currently can give to Wikipedia, one that will stay so for a while, I am afraid I cannot respond to your request, unless you help understand what you meant :-). In all cases, feel free to edit my contributions dear Raul654 as you seem vastly more involved in here than i ever will be -- Zelidar 21:13, 2005 Jun 9 (UTC)
Yes, I can be there...I have plans in the early/middle part of the day (EST) but other than that I should be free and I'll make a point to go into IRC and see if you're in there. Everyking 06:09, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Say, Raul, it just occured to me... Does Rabinovich actually writes AMAN? I don't believe I've seen that before. I realize you thought it was an acronym (thus, it would make sense to capitalize – but if it was, it'd be two not three letters), but it's an abbreviation. I've seen Aman used, and a quick search shows it is the prevalent use. I am, in fact, in favour of the jewishvirtuallibrary.org's A'man as the most correct name for the article/subject in English. So, unless you have any objections, I'm going to rename it accordingly. Regards, El_C 10:09, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Roger that. Why did I say three? Four! Yes, I think he errs on this in two interrelated ways: first giving the reader the impression it's a four-word acornym rather than a two-word abbrevation, & thereby also failing to convey that in Israel, it is pronounced A'man (and, in fact, rarely are the two words, Agaf Modiin, used in normal speech), similiarly to the pronounciation of Shabak (Shin Bet), or Shabas (prisons service), Magav (border service), etc. I didn't pick up on it right away since I haven't read much of this sort of material through English language sources. *** Quick question: is my spelling of inteligence for these purposes (as opposed to IQ, etc.) in error, or is that distinction a product of my feverish mind? TIA. El_C 21:27, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Netoholic has found himself a revert war on WP:POINT Snowspinner 15:08, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
... and Snowspinner has found himself a WP:POINT to make. -- Netoholic @ 15:11, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)
That was fairly well premature and, frankly, a cop-out. This would have been an ideal situation for you to "assist my communication" rather than pander to a tattler. Especially on WP:POINT, my
most recent edit was toward compromise, and now you've cut off that process without even discussing with me. --
Netoholic
@ 18:20, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)
Hi. I'm breaking for a bit, but I was wondering what your reasoning was for considering this to be Lir? ✏ OvenFresh ² 20:59, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Raul, have a serious issue on Zoroastrianism. It says:
I have a user on the talk page telling me that this is not POV writing, but standard scholarly opinion. Your contribution to this conversation would be most appreciated. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:15, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Good day. As Featured Articles and things related are generally your gig, I thought I'd let you know that I have created a list, not dissimilar from the Wikipedia:Featured articles page, of Former featured articles.
I did this in part for convenience (as the only way to track down what had been a featured article was to dig through the archive - which is exactly what I had to do to create this page). I believe a list like this is important because it illustrates that a page can evolve both ways, and that wikipedia standards have changed over the years.
I also created a shortcut for it, tweaked the {{ featuredtools}} template, and added references to it on the various FA-related pages. I was rather bold with this, so if you see that it needs improvement, (obviously) just change it.
Thanks for your time. -- Jeffrey O. Gustafson 06:47, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Hello. How to mark Image:Shakespeare.jpg to deletion because it is moved to commons as commons:Image:Shakespeare.jpg ? I am sysop on pl: Wikipedia and I can delete his image only on pl: Wikipedia ? Lzur 09:21, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I know :) {{NowCommons|Image:Shakespeare.jpg}}. Lzur 09:39, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Hi, Raul. I think I was the lone "object" vote on this article. This is no big deal, and in the end the article (on one of my top sports heros, along with Jim Ryun) ended up quite good. However, my objection was that the article was pretty much a "book report" on Jane Leavy's fine book. She told Koufax's story in an interesting fashion, interspersing his life history in the midst of describing, inning by inning, the devolution of his perfect game. The wikipedia biography reads in similar fashion, unlike other sports bios. Now that I think of it, I have done similar work ... reading a book on a topic and then later basing a wiki article on that knowledge. "Alfred Lee Loomis" comes to mind. But for that reason, I didn't think those kind of articles were FA status. Again, this is an observation, not an objection. If I'd felt strongly about it, I would have kept hammering the point on the FAC page. Just one more thing to keep in mind. Sfahey 03:40, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
{{ Disinfopedia}}, which you created, has been replaced by {{ Sourcewatch}}. Because there are no longer any articles that use the old template, the redirect is no longer necessary. Therefore Template:Disinfopedia has been nominated for deletion at WP:TFD. BlankVerse ∅ 11:10, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Congress has recently enacted a certain law which I think you need to be aware of. -- Jondel 05:52, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I somehow neglected that. Thanks for pointing it out. *Satis 01:54, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
![]() |
Your
Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for
featured picture status,
Image:Cleistocactus strausii2.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates.
|
Hey Raul654: I saw this was just posted by 62.253.96.42, and I thought you might want to know. Beyond that, it looks like he's back re-vandalizing the pages you reverted. Check out Special:Contributions/62.253.96.40; at least the last two are image removals. Thought you might want to deal with the obvious horsehockey at RfC and maybe give 62.253.96.42 a good thrashing. Happy hunting! Essjay · talk 09:51, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
Hey, Mark: Allareequal has been up to a pretty annoying thing today... pretty much all day, nonstop, he has been making nonsensical, overly generalised, nonencyclopaedic lists, and he refuses to stop. He has way too many to list them individually on VfD. Could you help me out with him? I don't know what to do - it's not really a case of vandalism, just a very stubborn, unintentionally abusive user. Thanks. jglc | t | c 18:09, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Hey Raul, thanks for your message. I really appreciate it. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 21:38, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
If Wikipedia's elite chess tournament isn't accepting new players, where can I sign up for the next one? -- WikiFan04 ß 00:21, 16 Jun 2005 (CDT)
When I suggested this for featured-article-of-the-day, you posted a note wondering if we could get an illustration other than a map. I checked the web-site of the Middletown, Ohio, public library, and found a general drawing of a canalboat from that era (circa 1840). I've posted that to the article and moved the map down in the article. PedanticallySpeaking 15:01, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
Need some admin help on this. User:Shrek32 has been adding links to fictional video games and movies in the fictional "Amber Sparks" and "Brooke Fox" series to various Lists of Movies and Lists of Video Games (i.e. Xbox 360, Nintendo Revolution, Nintendo DS, Gameboy Advance, Playstation 3, Playstation 2, Playstation Pocket). He just started adding entries for "The Doodlebops" - which also do not exist. His rate of vandalism is very high (just look at Special:Contributions/Shrek32; could you do a personal favour to me and help me out with shutting him down?
I am also submitting to Vandalism in Progress, just in case.
jglc | t | c 21:05, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
FYI, I have responded to your comment on WP:AN. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:15, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
You have voted to close this case. I object: the remedy aginst me is still unsupported by FoF, and my questions [5] remain unanswered. - User:William M. Connolley
Raul654 of the Wikipedians, I hearby promote you to the rank of Wiki Administrator, with all the privileges and responsibilities that it entails. :)
This is your ASCII insignia: (*****~)
func (talk) 18:52, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thanks in advance :)
Project2501a 17:44, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
OK, thank you for telling me. Everyking 05:53, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Happy birthday Mark! =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:30, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
oyaji-san, happy birthday! here's your present! Project2501a 12:28, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the only birthday present I have for you is a note to ask you to change the copyright tag on this image... You uploaded it under {{ PD-Germany}}, but this tag did not accurately state German copyright law. The image is not yet PD; however, it may be usable under fair use. Could you consider changing the tag to {{ fairuse}}. Cheers, and happy birthday! Physchim62 13:00, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I am very distressed at the speed with which you took down the Everyking mentorship discussion from the RfAr page once you got the 4th vote you were jockeying for. How does it hurt to leave it up for more than a few minutes so we could see who placed the votes? And once you've changed the rules of an arbcomm decision and parole, it would be nice if you'd notify the other admins so we know what to do and what not to do when we encounter someone who apprears to be violating their parole. Rick K 21:42, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
The preliminary decision is already in, and the majority votes have already been cast. Rick K 04:39, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
Hey, Raul. Since I renamed IDoMI back to A'man, the A'man page looks strange on my watchlist. Would you know how to fix it? Thanks in advance. Oh, and happy belated BDay! :) El_C 11:40, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
While checking which images I'd like to save ( Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Image_copyrights), I noticed that Image:Iwo Jima Flag Raising.jpeg was uploaded by you. Consider changing the copyright tag. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:38, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
...for helping me out. And, happy birthday! Looks like I got back just in time...it's your birthday, but I got the present. :^) Have an extra slice of cake for both of us, hear? - Lucky 6.9 20:41, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
My opponent just came out of the hospital. he was in a car accident. i think i'll wait a bit till he recovers and lets me know he's ok :) Project2501a 22:56, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I have a question: I wish to create a category of FA's called "Awards and Decorations." I know there are some decorations stuck under the military and war section ( Medal of Honor), chivilary ( Order of the Bath) and culture and society ( Hero of Belarus). I was wondering if you would have any problems with that? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 05:20, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
If you don't like it, feel free to change it. However, the capitalization of the link is not seen by the user (except on the status line), and it doesn't affect the ability to link to the article because the software automatically capitalizes the first letter in all links, so (to me) it's not a big deal. Russ Blau (talk) 16:34, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
I'm pleased that you added media files to the article on Giuseppe Cambini. Unfortunately, there is a glitch that causes each link to send me back to the Wikipedia main page, and the Info link sends me to a page that says something like "Image movement 1 .ogg doesn't exist." Del arte 22:12, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Take a look. Didn't you already yell at him for this exact reason? Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 03:24, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
Do you have a problem with my contribution to RickK's exit? 68.97.208.123 04:45, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I have a FAC ( Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Democratic Labour Party (Trinidad and Tobago)) up which has gotten comments from only three users in 12 days. I have addressed their concerns to the point where all three voted Support. However, there haven't been any more comments. Are three opinions adequate (it seems a bit thin to me), or should I go out and solicit input from other editors? Thanks. Guettarda 05:42, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Out of curiosity - is Neto's mentoring lifted? I've seen no activity on the mentoring page, and quite some WikiSpace activity by him. I'm not saying I disagree with any of that, but people were recently discussing whether mentoring actually works, so I was wondering if this was resolved, abandoned or still active. R adiant _>|< 08:02, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
Raul, I need you on IRC pronto. There's something we need to discuss. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 21:09, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
Traced two of them... one traces back to Amsterdam according to Geobytes (Whois basically says the same thing, tracing it back to an ISP based in the Netherlands), but the second ended up tracing back to an ISP in Italy. Here's the thing... that ISP was classified as a LOCAL service provider. I'm starting to think that we may have a bunch of vandals who are simply attempting to make the situation even worse. Traces I did on alleged sockpuppets of Enviroknot seem to suggest the same thing... Geobytes traced two of the four IPs it could find to Houston, a third to a city in Nevada, and a fourth to Toronto... yes, as in Canada. I've read quite a bit about a group of trolls called the GNAA... perhaps they're behind this? I seriously doubt that these IPs could all be used by the same person. Of course, I could be wrong... but it doesn't seem logical. -- Chanting Fox 04:03, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This appears to confirm my theory. →Raul654 04:23, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
Hello, my name is Floweofchivaly, working for science and history fields. I appology in advance to write this page suddenly.
I have been harrased by an admin user, User:Markalexander100, by various ways.
-- Flowerofchivalry 08:58, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Speaking to that, this is the response to your comment on my talk page:
Allow me to be the first to congrat you on successfuly defending your Thesis, Doc. Good going! One PhD down, 10 more to go! :D Project2501a 09:11, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I saw the note on your user page. Congragulations!!! 172 18:26, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
HI there, I was wondering if I could ask a favour. Since I am going to be away from a computer for pretty much this entire weekend, and I'm not sure that Washington gubernatorial election, 2004 will pass with Michael Snow's current objections. Is there any way you could hold off for a few days from taking it off the list so that I can address his obejctions? Thank you so much! Páll 18:37, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Hello, I noticed on Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship you said the following:
Yikes. I just reread the nomination in question, so I should clarify my above statement. There's definitely some very suspicious sockpuppetry going on, as well 2 people voting oppose to make a point (Netoholic and Boothy443) in violation of Wikipedia policy. On reconsideration, I think an extension is in order.
I'm curious how their votes were in violation of Wikipedia policy? Thanks. :) kmccoy (talk) 22:58, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Suffice it to say, I'm not going to rebut every point, but:
Alright, thank you for your time. kmccoy (talk) 05:27, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Here's a weird thing. I blocked Enviroknot for 12 hours at 03:46 Jun 25 for ignoring the arbcom temp injunction, but he just carried right on editing with that user name. I re-blocked at 04:28 (see block log), but it still didn't stop him. He's starting to remind me of Robert De Niro in Cape Fear. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:10, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
I have serious problems with this as a featured article. It overrelies on Rabinovich - no book could be that good, most especially in a field like this, in which the density of lies from all sides is off the scale, and everybody and book should be treated with suspicion, which I think I can justify with Rabinowitz. In a very quick glance a couple months ago it seemed to me to be quite POV, leaving out or minimizing crucial information. Judging from some comments you've made, I believe you have received a rather distorted understanding of the causes and outcome of this war from this book. If any war was ever aptly described as the continuation of diplomacy by other means, this one was, and not understanding this deeply enough leads one, and this article, to a nonstandard, ahistorical and overnarrow conclusion of even "who won." I barely missed putting them in the debate when it was a candidate - didn't realize how fast it would be closed - and I sent you an email that day - did you get it? At the very least, I don't think it should be a "today's featured article" for a while, without some real work. I hope you could bear with me, and allow me to present my objections rather slowly as the weeks pass. I was not feeling well when the debate was ongoing and a great deal of other stuff piled up.-- John Z 19:10, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
There are severe NPOV problems with choosing libertarism as a WP:FA. See the talk, please. SV| t 20:05, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I'm having an issue with Netoholic that perhaps you could review. It's not a major problem, but it is a source of irritation. On Susvolans' RFA, Netoholic voted to oppose with the comment "No Way." I was curious as to why he felt so strongly and asked "Any particular reason?". Netoholic proceeded to move my question to the comments section with the edit summary "do not challenge voters. moving comment"
From my experience, it's quite common to see questions in both the support and oppose section of an RfA. Not only has Netoholic persisted in moving my question, he hasn't made any attempt to answer it. The last I've heard from him was "You'll get a better explanaion when I see fit." Thanks for your time. Carbonite | Talk 13:32, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Since Neto is accusing me of stalking anyway, I took the liberty of looking over his contribs log. What I saw was not good. About 80% of his edits of the past couple days are part of several edit and revert wars; one to deprecate a spoiler template, one other about layout of a series of templates, and a third about an external link at Magic: The Gathering, for which he broke the 3RR today. Apart from that, his behavior towards others is incivil at best, he's made several WP:POINTs recently, has directly contravened TFD consensus and has been biting a newbie. All in all, if he hadn't been under mentorship, I would have blocked him for these disruptions for at least a day. Please look into this. Yours, R adiant _>|< June 28, 2005 21:15 (UTC)
Mark, thank you for arranging the introduction of the article. It looks great! Also, thank you for the good news. It gives me great satisfaction to know that the article will be on Wiki's main page. It's been a pleasure writting to you, take care. Marine 69-71 29 June 2005 03:49 (UTC)
Glad someone got it. - Ta bu shi da yu 29 June 2005 08:24 (UTC)
Please take a look at the recent edit histories of:
And tell me if you think these chnages, and the continued reverts to enforce them without discussion, a poll, or any attempt to reach consensus on the issue are appropriate. DES 29 June 2005 15:54 (UTC)
I agree entirely with what you said to me in private on IRC, Raul654. We need to get rid of that Jimbo Wales from the project as soon as possible. The uprising should be swift and effective. - Mark 1 July 2005 08:56 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Archived_nominations#History_of_Poland_.281945-1989.29. Note 3 objects with 3 supports make a tie, but there is also my nomination (i.e. fourth support). In addition note a positive comment by 172 and that the objections have been adressed - as far as I can tell, unfortunately none of the peope who objected decided to reply to me on FAC or via talk pages, even through I asked them to list more objectionable materia both on FAC and on their talk pages. I think this should be featured so I'd like to ask you to reconsider your decision on this one - and if you have some time, read through the article and comment yourself. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 1 July 2005 14:33 (UTC)
Raul - I thought I should tell you that you've protected the last few FA templates from moves only, rather than from edits. The "confirm protection" checkbox has disappeared in MediaWiki 1.5, so one need only fill in the reason and hit the button. (I fixed July 1 through 4 already.) — Dan | Talk 1 July 2005 15:16 (UTC)
Theres been a few claims by people that Vanilla Ninja isn't main page worthy. Personally i'm grateful for your using it. Its a victory, in a way, for tackling systematic bias as its a topic which has relevance to Central and Eastern Europe, and not the US or UK like nearly all topics are. The objections I believe are biased by people never hearing of the group. The article passed its FAC, and I think those judgements still stand. Hedley 1 July 2005 17:41 (UTC)
I've written up a new policy proposal, with assistance from Ed Poor, to set out some guidelines and basic principles for dealing with naming conflicts of the Gdanzig type. Could you take a look at Wikipedia:Naming conflict and let me know what you think? -- ChrisO 1 July 2005 22:14 (UTC)
Saying that it "looks good" is more than I'm willing to say for this article, but I agree that an effort has been made on my actionable objections. Since that's the usual standard for promotion, I'm okay if you go ahead. In reality, the article is probably as good as at least a few of our featured articles, but I tend to have pretty high standards for them. And in this case I know enough about the subject to be fairly confident that some flaws remain, but I'd have to do more research to assess them properly. -- Michael Snow 3 July 2005 05:03 (UTC)
Speaking of which, I have taken care of all the objections that have been listed. A lot of people have not updated their opinion of the article, and apart from a few details, there's not that much more left to add. Any chance of taking it off the FAC page and adding it to the list of featured articles? :) Thanks! Pall.
Good sir. Your comments would be welcome on some recent attacks made against me on the above FAC. A pretty nasty accusation was made that I had gone through and deleted peoples objections, without consent, on the last FAC. For the record, I stated that was a lie. The user in question (as we know) turned the page into a general debate on the validity of a fiction article as an FAC. The debate itself was moved to the talk page and then to a general project discussion page. The user never objected or said anything on the talk page but now has posted that his comments were deleted without consent. This guy has really come out of the woodwork with open dislike of both me and the article. I have some theories as to why but wouldnt dare post them here! On a side note, the FAC above needs to closed. It was renomated far too soon by a user named Coolcat and the article, itself, is far from being an FAC. Thanks for your time and support. - Husnock 3 July 2005 21:50 (UTC)
You just threatened to block me. Am I breaking a rule, or are you just allowed to block people when don't like their edits? Floopy 3 July 2005 23:31 (UTC)
Your interpretation of policy is as false as your summary of the facts.
In short, while you have made some legitimate edits, it does not excuse you from following the rest of our policies, your wiki-lawyering not withstanding. →Raul654 July 4, 2005 02:49 (UTC)
Gah! This is still going? Enough wikilawyering already, if you want to inline those images, gain the consensus on the talk page. End of story. El_C 4 July 2005 03:17 (UTC)
Negative, this is about your misdirected innunedo and wikilawyering. He just warned you, I would have done the same thing. From reading everything above, I'd say he has been exceedingly patient with you, much more so than I would in his place. El_C 4 July 2005 03:32 (UTC)
Who's the "model" for the vagina picture?
[8] And: It doesn't matter if its a line drawing or a photo, that slut had her hand inside her private parts.
[9]
El_C 4 July 2005 04:12 (UTC)Thanks for moving African American literature to featured article status. Unfortunately, a minor editing issue came up and I wasn't sure if this would mess up the Wiki Featured Article system or not. The article was originally titled African-American literature (with a hyphen) but, after a discussion at Talk:African American literature the consensus view was to change the title to African American literature (with no hyphen). I moved the original page to the non-hyphenated link and I have gone back and changed all of the links I could find (except for a few personal pages). However, I wasn't sure if this change would mess up how Featured articles are programmed. Just wanted to let you know. Thanks. -- Alabamaboy 4 July 2005 02:51 (UTC)
Have a look at Intelligent Design now and Daniel Pipes! The site looks bloody awful now! I have listed it on WP:TFD. Please vote for this to be deleted and make a comment. - Ta bu shi da yu 4 July 2005 08:03 (UTC)
I have sat in the background on most of the ongoing disputes involving Yuber, but I think Fred's analysis is correct. While you're certainly right that removing categories is insufficient evidence of experience, what convinced me was Yuber's edit summary for the edit in question. Now you have my 2¢. Tomer TALK July 4, 2005 17:50 (UTC)
I don't want to take up too much of your time, but I'm wondering why no response has been given, nor action taken, in regard to Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Yuber/Proposed_decision#Point_of_Order. I'm assuming it's been overlooked, as ArbCom has expressed elsewhere their swampedness... ? Tomer TALK July 5, 2005 23:48 (UTC)
NOT AT ALL!!! :-D :-D :-D Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk July 5, 2005 01:57 (UTC)
Thanks for signing on my behalf. :-) Please see my minor concern at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/July 7, 2005. -- Sundar \ talk \ contribs July 6, 2005 06:58 (UTC)
Hey, man; So, I added a VfD notice to Maya & Miguel (game). After getting several red flags from it, I Googled, and notices of its creation are nowhere to be found; additionally, I am pretty well convinced that the account who created the entry ( User:Doctor33) is the same person as the two anonymous IP's and also User:Shrek32, the person who was adding all those fictitious entries to List of (insert game console) Games. He has removed my VfD notice from the article three times, and shows no signs of stopping or communicating with me. Does this fall under the 3RR? And whether or not it does, can you help me out with him? His spurious edits are quite annoying. jglc | t | c 7 July 2005 13:57 (UTC)
There is a proposal now in place to expand the CSD policy. An additional proposal was added to the proposed policy page. User:Netoholic reverted this addition without discussion on any talk page, although his edit summery did explain his reasons. Please see this diff and this section where I expalin why i disagree with his actions. I think the way Netoholic appraoched this was unwise and that you as his mentor, might wish to discus this with him. DES 7 July 2005 15:54 (UTC)
I concur with DropDeadGorgias here. The page says, in big, bold lettering, not to modify it. Someone did, and Netoholic removed it with a clear edit summary. There's no subtle nuances to discuss (it clearly needed to be removed) so I don't really see the need for him to have used the talk page. →Raul654 July 7, 2005 17:38 (UTC)
I'm curious, Raul, do you think Netoholic's recent unilateral "closure" of Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal and the various moves of other people's proposals related to this jsut before are also OK?
I've replied on the talk page. Long story short -- the whole procedure has become a mess. Netholic has a valid complaint that people shouldn't be changing proposals in the middle of voting, but I don't think shutting down the vote was the best idea. I have protected it until you guys can come to some kind of agreement. →Raul654 July 7, 2005 21:34 (UTC)
I note that you have not, or not yet, protected the sub pages on which actual votes are tallied, and some users are continuing to vote. If you think that voting on existing proposals must be suspended, then those pages all need protection, or at least a note about the suspension, IMO. DES 7 July 2005 21:37 (UTC)
I would not have worried except for Netoholic's history of warring over a series of templates a couple of months back. I praise Netoholic's tactful and mature handling of this particular case and apologise for misjudging him here. -- Tony Sidaway| Talk 9 July 2005 12:43 (UTC)
I appreciate your help getting involved. If you need to talk more about all this, I'll try and get on IRC in an hour or two. -- Netoholic @ 7 July 2005 21:45 (UTC)
Am I incorrect or out of line in thinking that the recent cahnges to Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion without a formal proposal, are a bit dubious? Please let me know if I am overreacting here, as I may be upset by recent events. Please look at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion for more detail. DES 7 July 2005 22:13 (UTC)
I don't know where/how to report vandalism; but you seem knowledgeable, so I thought I'd call your attention to a recent edit to Rusty Foster by Trollaxor. FYI, no reply necessary.
Dear Raul, I have a question for you. There has been a nomination of the GNAA article for FAC, maybe out of spite of the article being put on VFD. It's at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Gay Nigger Association of America. I already noticed a sockpuppet voting here, a sock puppet making the nomination, and an inactionable objection. However, is there such thing as a inactionable/discarded support vote? A comment by a user, after his vote, disturbed me: "Highly support this nomination. After so much opposition and against-the-rules VfD requests posted by filthy Zionist pigs whose ancestors should have died in the gas chambers, the GNAA article deserves some positive attention." Can something be done about it? Myself and another admin, Ta bu shi da yu, wishes for the vote to be closed for now. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 20:46, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
I'm hoping you'll help me with a problem that has gotten out of hand in the Homosexuality article and its talk page; specifically, with user 67.41.236.211. Also see: User talk:Tznkai - in which 67.41.236.211 actually deleted a private message which I posted to Tznkai, warning him about an unwarranted attack that was made against him (and also against yourself, it could be added) posted by Haiduc on the Wikipedia:LGBT notice board. Haiduc's comments about you and Tznkai were completely out of line, and I thought the targets were entitled to know what was going on - especially since Haiduc was calling for even more people in that group to come in and add to the mess. While the debates in the Homosexuality article have always been contentious, the recent stuff has truly crossed the line.
I would like to thank you for trying to clean up parts of that article, as many of us have been trying to do for a long time. Your additions were all inevitably reverted, but that's par for the course in that article. 66.216.226.34 06:58, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
I noticed your reply to Taxman, and wanted to know what your opinion was of the current situation. The person ( Kaibabsquirrel ( talk · contribs)) who is currently opposing the article appears (to me) to be a fan of Paul R. Ehrlich's work (Ehrlich's bestselling predictions of worldwide famine were prevented by Borlaug's work), and has been making some odd (to me) edits of Ehrlich's article (such as moving to the "Criticisms" section the fact that Ehrlich's biggest predictions didn't actually come to pass). -- brian0918 ™ 19:42, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
Obviously, the username is unacceptable, but what should be done? Is the proper procedure a VfD, a Vandalism warning, or what? Get back to me, and I can take care of it, or follow the proper procedure yourself; just a head's up. jglc | t | c 13:21, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
My apologies for disparaging you. I should have checked before I spoke. It is just that the whole tone of the discussion was such that I jumped to conclusions. It probably does not help that I am old enough to be your father. Still and all, I would appreciate a bit more gentleness and collegiality if you are going to get involved with the article on Homosexuality. It is a difficult and divisive topic, and it is not helpful to have someone come in and tear it to pieces who has not been there through the hard-fought compromises and the efforts to be fair all around. Cheers, Haiduc 03:20, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
O, Creator of the Meme, do you have direct links to all the stress thermometer images? siafu 16:27, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
My original set of 4 (which I introduced with this edit) seems to have been deleted (I think by Fredric when he made his set)
Here are all the english versions I know of, in chronological order:
Version set 2 - Fredric's SVG version:
Version set 3 - the 3d modelled version:
And of course, the no pants version:
They've been translated and put on commons too:
'Hope this answers your question. →Raul654 16:33, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
I would invite your participation at Wikipedia talk:Requests_for_adminship/William_M._Connolley. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:33, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
... just me! That user had not been created, so I created it and made one edit. Sorry for the confusion! - Ta bu shi da yu 03:14, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
User:Trey Stone, who is currently in arbitration, has just been blocked for the ninth [12] time since he entered arbitration on May 12th, this time for violation of the 3RR. Three arbitrators have voted for a temporary injunction that he be banned from editing political articles pending the resolution of the arbitration ( Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Trey_Stone_and_Davenbelle/Proposed_decision#Temporary_ban), which is just one arbitrator vote shy of what is needed to go into effect.
I have been reading WikiEN-l and there was a discussion of how half of the current arbitrators are away or inactive. Which means that effectively, the four of six arbs needed to do the temporary ban is not really 33.33% but 66.66%. Anyhow, reading that on WikiEN-l prompted me to put this on your talk page as it seemed the wheels of justice were grinding slowly for this very disruptive user. Thanks. -- Ruy Lopez 15:44, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
I was wondering if you, or another admin, can switch the photo from the one that is there to the new image, please. Thanks. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 00:38, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
Ha! I figured it was vandalism from some GNAA person which nobody had noticed before. It didn't quite fit in with the other arcanely amusing punishments! :-) — Dan | Talk 03:23, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
Heh, just a funny little thing. I saw a man take a picture from that position at borders and I wondered "is that guy taking a picture for wikipedia? I wish I had brought my camera" hah, and indeed it was. The question was, why did I wait when I'm not even a big fan. Cheers. gren 07:29, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
{{ reqimage}} has been that "monstrous piece of ugliness" for over a month. Why does Netoholic need to get into an revert war over that template when he has not participated at all in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Template locations#Design and layout issues, nor has he participated at all in the discussion at Template talk:Reqimage until today. I HATE revert wars, and to have Netoholic paraphrase me as the justification for this most resent revert war has me doubly pissed off. Revert wars are a pox upon the Wikipedia and Netoholic is the prime warrior. BlankVerse ∅ 08:44, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
Raul, It wasn't so much which color (talk standard or cleanup\improvement style)... The "war" was over this ugly version, which User:Who created. He's been moving discussion about it from page to page, and fairly well delaying change, but the end result is that no one wants the ugly box. -- Netoholic @ 17:31, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
Ah, ok, well Violetariga has reverted to this version, which I believe should be acceptable to everyone. →Raul654 20:39, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
Why did you revert them? I'm trying to convert to the new CSS format, and they look identical to before. -- Netoholic @ 15:41, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
Hi, I didn't know where to post this question, and since you seem to be more or less in charge of this business, I figured you would know as much as anyone I can think of. There is an article I've found ( Anatoly Karpov) that I don't think deserves to be featured anymore, mostly because I think the standards for featured articles are going up. Do you think an article that was previously considered good enough to be featured should be nominated to remove its featured status because of increasing standards? What do you think of this article in particular? -- malathion talk 22:14, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
After chasing my tail around for 1/2 an hour trying to find a page dealing with inline citations, I got fed up and asked about. The answer I got was that no such page for inline citations existed, so I created one.
The problem is I need someone of your stature to check the newly formed Inline Citation page and make sure that I got all of my ducks in a single line. I would be tremendously gratefull if you could do that for me. TomStar81 00:51, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
I really don't understand, come on IRC if you can. -- Netoholic @ 02:51, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
The projects I mentioned -
Should take quite a long time. -- Netoholic @ 05:11, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
I think Image:WWII Poland Invasion 1939-09-01.jpg would be bette then Image:German Troops In Warsaw.jpg, could you switch them? I can't figure how :( -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 09:30, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
Take a look at User:CockBot's contributions, then plz ban it instantly. jglc | t | c 18:39, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for scheduling this for the front page for 21 July, the day the 2005 Ashes start. I'm sure I'm not speaking out of turn for others by saying it's much appreciated by WP:Cricket, jguk 18:51, 19 July 2005 (UTC).
I'd like to add my thanks. It was nice to see it there. In general I like the idea of choosing featured articles for the front page on the basis of anniversaries or current events, provided of course they aren't mentioned in one of the other sections. — Trilobite ( Talk) 06:39, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
Please look at the edit history of Wikipedia:Third opinion and specifically at this Diff. Please also look at my talk page and that of the other user involved. Am I out of line here? What is the proper action at this point. i think the other user involved is out of line, but I am trying to be sensible and not escalate further. DES 03:23, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
I'm requesting that this article be on the main page on Weds. July 27th. This isn't an anniversary or notable event related to the article in any way. Thanks. -- BRIAN 0918 14:45, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
Hi Mark,
Do you know who handles emailing out the daily Featured Article? Or more precisely, do you know how to satisfy the request at Wikipedia_talk:Picture_of_the_day#Can_we_have_a_POTD_by_email.3F. There's probably a number of issues around whether everyone would want it, of whether it should be a separate mailing list, whether images are inlined and would that push bandwidth up too much, etc. -- Solipsist 10:47, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
User:Unknown566, with the same pattern of nonsense edits to video game lists as User:216.83.121.194, User:Doctor33, User:68.32.159.227, and User:Shrek32. Could you help me get him blocked? Thx. jglc | t | c 13:58, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
I have created the stub articles you requsted, and I said you can show a photo of a person wearing the medal. However, I do not have a photo of the medal alone I could use that came from the Belarusian Government. That is why I made the drawing, so I can get around copyright issues. If there is anything you can think up of, let me know please. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 20:48, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
Hi Marc,
Can you take a look at the layouts at Talk:Main_Page#DYK_.2F_POTD_layout and see whether they cause any of the layout issues that briefly caused a problem last weekend. -- Solipsist 21:51, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
I've been tracking it myself for the last little while. -- Michael Snow 17:48, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
Your
Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for
featured picture status,
Image:Pangong lake by martinl.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates.
|
-- Solipsist 21:24, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
My statement about lies is the only statement I will provide until the requestor changes his presentation. I will answer your questions if you have any. Aloha. -- AI 23:06, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
Hi Raul, I was hoping you could expand on your comment in the FAC discussion for race and intelligence regarding a self-referential statement that was in the article intro. I think the statement (below) noting that the article conforms to mainstream opinion is useful to readers, as public awareness of the topic is generally from scientific-minority POVs. I'm not sure why the statement's self-referentiality is undesirable. Can you explain what you meant? Thanks, Nectarflowed T 07:22, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
Context:
Self-referential writing is a sentence that refers to the article in which it appears. For example, from
this version of the article - All such tests are often called "intelligence tests," though the term "intelligence" is controversial; in this article, "IQ test" denotes any test of cognitive ability. - it's a horrible writing style and should be avoided at all costs. Does that answer your question?
→Raul654 20:04, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
I think that
User:Deb has misused sysop privileges by protecting the page
Lady Catherine Grey after herself twice moving the article from its original location "Catherine Grey" to her this new location. She admits having done the protection, after her own second move (see
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk%3AJtdirl&diff=19381941&oldid=19331143). The renaming history is recent and is available easily at
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Lady_Catherine_Grey&action=history
My impression is that Deb deliberately and knowingly uses the admin power in this "content dispute" to push her own opinion onto others. The article had been in its old location for long time, apparently years. Its (first) renaming came only very recently, made by Deb. Rather disturbingly, Deb had not bothered to discuss her intention to move at the discussion
Talk:Catherine Grey before her first renaming (there was e.g no vote), and she did not properly discuss it even before her second move. (Relevant naming conventions are saying things that "Catherine Grey" is acceptable and the heading needs not necessarily be "Lady Catherine Grey": there are two conditions in naming convention for putting "lady", both requirements should be fulfilled. There is thus content dispute, and its outcome is actually not relevant to decide whether Deb abused the admin powers. I am for the old heading, and I believe it to be the more correct one.) One small point is that apparently Deb had not made any
contribution to the article before her renaming - this speaks of an editor who is focused on, not content of this article, but making her own version of form to prevail.
I have also earlier came to see Deb's actions and style of comments. She shows a pattern of not being capable of presenting reasons, and she seems to read policies and conventions in a loose manner, not fully grasping what such guideline actually says. Deb appears to not want to answer properly, substantively, to questions or to presented arguments, rather she gives sort of platitudes. An example is "...were agreed before you arrived" which implies an attempt to prevail by some sort of seniority (though, figuratively speaking, seniority could also be e.g senility).
Anyway, Deb's said action in protecting a page she had herself been warring over seems to be such a misuse that deserves some work. May I leave this matter to your capable hands in higher administration of WP.
217.140.193.123 10:28, 23
July 2005 (UTC)
I note that there are red links for the Air Force band items uploaded by your bot.
Bot problems? Copyright problems? Attitude problems over at the commons? I thought I'd at least bring it to your attention and offer to help.
I believe that it is a matter of time before there is a policy collision between En: and Commons. If nothing else, there are few commons sysops who are also active on En:. As a result, prompt response vandalism of images that are prominent on En: may become a problem. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 06:08, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
I left a note requesting Marshall, Texas be featured on the main page August 3, but have not recieved a reply. I need to know if it will be featured then, so I'll have time to clean up or create related articles. Please respond. Thanks. - JCarriker 06:40, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
I admire your patience in dealing with the ongoing "sneakiness" at AIDS.... but.... "AIDS is the result of infection with Human immunodeficiency virus is correct, and 'AIDS is the result of an infection of Human immunodeficiency virus' isn't. People are infected with a virus, or by a virus, but not of a virus. The second phrase implies that the virus is itself infected (and viruses sometimes are, by phages), and that's wrong for HIV. - Nunh-huh 05:28, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
Probably not worth worrying too much about until the interference with the article dies down, I just wanted to say that "of" really isn't idiomatic. - Nunh-huh 05:43, 25 July 2005 (UTC)AIDS (Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome or Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome) is a disease caused by the Human immunodeficiency virus ( HIV). HIV infection weakens the immune system, resulting in unusual infections and some rare cancers. Although treatments exist, there is no known cure for AIDS.
i appreciate your recent edits to this article. J. Parker Stone 21:32, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
(Regarding Template:Film-stub and Template:Multi-video start and template:video)
I like the old icon better. This one is bumpy on the edges and the old one wasn't. -- BRIAN 0918 21:36, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
I'm thinking about duplicating on the English Wikipedia a project from the German version, described here. Any objections? Also, any objections to users providing links on their user pages or on related article talk pages for such things as paypal donations, similar to "homework help" forums where answer-providers have links stating "if I have helped you, would you please consider saying thanks in the form of a paypal donation", only in this case, "if you feel my contributions have been useful, would you consider..." or on (for example) a featured article's talk page, "if you feel this article has been informative, would you consider..." (of course, inquiring minds would want to check the edit history to see if the user has contributed anything). This sounds like a good idea and it looks to be growing on the German site. It's sure to increase popularity and incentive for producing more and better content. -- BRIAN 0918 21:36, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
What about the other suggestion: users on their own pages or on article talk pages sticking a message with a link to paypal? I'd like to test it out to see what kind of response there would be :) BRIAN 0918 22:14, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
Oh lord. No, no, no! this kind of comment (basically pan-handling on the talk page) is not acceptable. It's one thing to offer a bounty if someone will write what you want; it's *very* different to use the talk pages to ask for it. The former is a controversial practice; the latter us utterly unacceptable. →Raul654 00:32, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
Alright, how about this for the project: we start out with the same setup, except that the only forms of reimbursement have no monetary value, so these could include requesting a featured article on topic X in exchange for a featured article on topic Y (this form of payment is popular on the German project), if not featured then of a quality that is examined after-the-fact by the requestor/community, or requesting a translation of article X from/to language A in exchange for a translation of article Y from/to language B (also popular on the German project), or giving various Wikithanks/Barnstars for the work. In the meantime, we can discuss the expansion to monetary trades on the talk page. --
BRIAN
0918 03:50, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
Hi Raul654,
Can you take a look at Commons:Commons:Administrators. The voting there appears to be almost inactive, and given that the window for nominations is 7 days, it could probably benefit from a little more attention. -- Solipsist 06:30, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
Sorry to walk into the middle of your conversation, but I've been blathering about the admin situation on commons for some time now to anyone who will listen. There is a potential vandalism problem brewing:
The Uninvited Co., Inc. 14:20, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
Hrmmmm..... →Raul654 17:49, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
Hello Raul654 please help me in wikipedia. i am not new to wikipedia but need help in editing that article.-- IDude 101 14:34, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
I see that you removed a tag from Democratic peace theory. I fear that Ultramarine can be a disruptive user, and articles near him tend to acquire tags. You should see Criticisms of communism, on which he has put three. :) Septentrionalis 20:38, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
Hi Raul. User:Frazzydee phoned me a little while ago to say that his router is broken and that he'll be on vacation until August 1, so he needs someone to send out the daily article until that date. Could you possibly run it? Today's article is pending, as his router broke before he could send it out today. Thanks, Yelyos 01:48, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
In order to save everyone time and so that AI can focus on the real world, AI has proposed a solution in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/AI#Remedies :D -- AI 01:57, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
Hi, Raul654! I'm so glad go be back! I'm so glad to see you're still here! I hope we can have a lot of fun helping each other out, buddy! Plautus satire 03:41, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
Raul654, I have not even been back 1 day and already you're threatening me on my talk page! I am in schock! I thought you were better than that! Shame on you, Raul654, I wish you hadn't threatened me on my talk page on my first day back! Plautus satire 03:52, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
Let's here it for collaboration! Yay! We can all work together! Woo hoo! Let's go, Raul654! No slackers! Plautus satire 04:17, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
Raul654, there's no reason to lie to get attention! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plautus satire ( talk • contribs) 04:47, 28 July 2005
And now, the show we've all been waiting for... Plautus Satire 2: Special Edition! I probably won't be around much for this one, as I seem to have acquired a job and some new hobbies since he last graced us with his presence. Isomorphic 04:45, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
Hi, Raul654! I'm so glad to be back! I can't wait to start correcting mistakes! Let's work together, buddy! Plautus satire 15:36, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
I already have, buddy! Check the mask article! Woo-hoo! My count is almost doubled by your reckoning! Plautus satire 16:03, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
Before getting to the substance of my comment, let me just thank you for all the work you've done for Wikipedia; users like you are such an asset to the project. I do have one minor critique to make, though... I noticed that you promoted Italian Renaissance to featured status, but at the time, I had an actionable (and in my view appropriate) objection. ( Candidate page, with my comments) I objected to elevation to featured status on the grounds that there are stylistic issues in the article, missing commas, etc. I went through the first half, but haven't had time to fix the second half. At any rate, you probably just didn't see my objection; I'll do more to address it myself, but the style isn't up to par for our (rightly) high standards for featured articles. -- Zantastik talk 17:51, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
Also,
this
should become this
Would you please weigh in on my "Latest attempt" at ending this edit war and unprotecting the page. Even Bensaccount, who has been the most opposed to all previous versions, seems to like it. -- BRIAN 0918 14:59, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
I just got this Wikipedia email from this person. He probably sent it to countless others as well:
I also received one:
-- cesarb 21:46, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
To all those above who have no idea what is going on, Plautus is a crackpot and troll who was forcefully thrown out of wikipedia about a year ago. This is not the first time that he got banned and emailed large numbers of people begging to be unbanned. I've catalogued the whole sordid affair of Plautus's existance at user:Raul654/Plautus. This was the primary evidence against him when the arbcom banned him for a year. →Raul654 00:28, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
He served out his ban in its entirety; no one is disputing that. But he started misbehaving almost the second he arrived back. I've updated user:Raul654/Plautus to include his recent misdeeds. →Raul654 05:21, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
Hi Raul—did you mean to place your reply to Everyking's statement at the bottom of the talk page, or would it be better off right under his ultimatum? I didn't want to move the comment for you, since it's on an arbitration page. TenOfAllTrades( talk) 20:45, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
Hey there, I'm wondering why you listed Suburbs of Johannesburg as a former featured article candidate. When I looked at the page, there were four supports, one neutral, and one object that is inactionable and he never responded to my questions. I fixed the problems with the image, I just wasn't near a computer to reply to his comments. So as far as I can see, it should have passed without a problem. Would you mind explaining? Thanks! Páll (Die pienk olifant) 04:22, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
I don't know if you will care, but User:Michel Jackson Fan made an addition to WP:RA intended to demean you: [14]. It has been removed. The only other edits from the account are to User talk:Lir, where he also made a personal attack against you, and which I see you already removed. Dragons flight 15:12, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
This is really starting to piss me off, so I'm sure you would like to hear about it :) We start out with List of victims of the 1913 Great Lakes storm and List of General Slocum victims. The latter was VFD'd from Wikipedia, where they said to move it to Wikisource or Commons (since Commons does accept text). So, the former was moved to Wikisource as well. Now they are currently up for deletion at Wikisource, where people say to move it to Wikipedia or Commons. So, in the interim, they've been copied over to Commons. Now they are currently up for deletion at Commons, where people say it should be on Wikisource or Wikipedia. Now, they clearly shouldn't be on Wikisource, since they are user-compiled lists. Where do you think they should be? -- BRIAN 0918 16:05, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
I have removed your nomination of TOCright from TFD on the grounds that it was kept with a 31 to 14 vote concluded just earlier this month: Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/TOCright. Further, unless something has changed, the MOS discussion also seems to have concluded that right-aligned TOCs were acceptable, albeit under limited circumstances: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Template:TOCright. Dragons flight 09:24, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
Hi, I see you have reverted the TOC to non floating, being left below the intro. In general I think this is a sound layout principle, but I floated left in this case for 2 reasons. Firstly, someone had positioned it floated right, which placed it below the opening image and (to my POV) made the article completely inaccessible for the casual reader, particularly those browsing with low screen resolutions: there is no indication of the depth of content. Secondly, the intro for the Tony Blair article is much too long to have the TOC below it, again for the same reasons.
I think that either the intro needs to be shortened or the TOC floated left to bring it into effective view.
What are your thoughts? -- Cactus.man 10:50, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
You had promoted Louisville just a few hours after I'd made some additional critique. I think you should have allowed the nominators to reply to them and only promote after a day's lull. There were some pending issues that needed to be sorted out such as non-encyclopedic tone and ill chosen words. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:55, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
Howdy Mark. I came across this list of mp3s of U.S. Air Force military bands playing Bach, Holst, etc. All these recordings are public domain, produced by the Air Force, and they're mp3s of good quality. But they're big, of course. (Venus, bringer of peace, is 7.8 megs). Is it a good idea for me to upload these to the Commons? What do you think? – Quadell ( talk) ( sleuth) 23:41, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
Raul, where are the rules about FAC elevation-- that is, what ratio of Supporting to Objecting votes an article needs to become featured? I can't find these rules. JDG 17:17, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Raul, this is not real urgent or anything, but if you've got a few minutes, I'd really like to have a word on IRC. -- Bishonen| Talk 17:54, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
How about IRC now? It's about a FAC. I would really like to touch base with you before I comment on it. -- Bishonen| Talk 18:18, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Well, clearly you and I disagree. I'm new around here, and I've been called a bit thickheaded in the past, so perhaps you're right. Perhaps Netoholic is not a vandal. But then, I'd like to know what we can do about him.
Netoholic is in arbitration. He is making pointless edits -- in addition to the ones he makes to prove a point. He is ignoring consensus -- it is not only I who have a problem with him, personally and professionally. His actions often do cause a chain-reaction of damage that extends into multiple areas of the project without control.
Even I can see that he knows he is on his way out, or at the very least on his way to a period of cooling-off. It's pretty plain he means to go out with a bang, and be sure he is remembered long after he departs.
It takes about ten times as long to clean up after just one of his stunts as it takes him to do it -- to revert the damage, to speak to him politely about it, to document it on a relevant Talk page, to document it again as evidence in his arbitration case, to caucus with other concerned users, on and on. None of this contributes substantially to the project. Netoholic is eating away at the bone and muscle of this community.
I am so thankful you have the elementary decency to identify yourself as a member of the power structure here. WP is so hierarchy-shy that it seems to be almost impossible to find out even who Jimbo Wales is. I don't like power-mad bureaucrats either, but I think we need some structure, and part of structure is knowing what that structure is.
Now that I have your attention, I should like to ask for a simple, emergency remedy for the situation. Please simply block Netoholic from editing, outright. If you can do it so that he can continue to edit in his own user space, I think that's fine; otherwise, so be it. Impose the block as soon as you can do so, and maintain it until the Arbitration Committee finishes deliberation on his case.
To make it absolutely clear that I seek no special advantage in any matter, and to demonstrate my perfect sincerity and good faith, I offer to accept a similar block, of similar duration and extent. You have my word that I will not meddle in the guise of a sock puppet, anonymous or otherwise; you should also block Xiong Sockpuppet, which I created only for the purpose of trying to workaround some browser display and CSS issues. I ask only for a word of explanation to be displayed on my User and Talk pages, so nobody wonders why I do not reply directly to their comments to me.
I have real work to do in this project, and I believe I have been a useful contributor in my small way. But I can get nothing done while cleaning up after Netoholic anyway, so if you accept this solution, I welcome it. If you feel you cannot in good faith do so, please refer me to the gentleman who might hear my plea. Thank You! —
Xiong
talk 08:38, 2005 Apr 5 (UTC)
Yeah, I had the vandal tell me that my impartiality was questionable because of the barnstar. :) Rick K 04:07, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
It's an honour to get a barnstar from the FAC-King (oh!) - thanks very much for that. Oo, my first one - put a smile on my face now! =) violet/riga (t) 14:19, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Hi Mark.
In light of the overall changes in the look and feel of the 'pedia with growing use of templates, and in consideration of some recent misunderstandings involving proposed policy, I created templates for {{notpolicy}}, {{semipolicy}}, {{rejected}}, and {{historical}} pages. If you're interested, I'd like to invite you to review both the wording of the templates themselves, and the matter of correct categorizaiton of the pages that use them. I mainly followed the existing categorization tags, which doesn't mean a whole lot since I was the one who placed them originally in many cases. I think some discussion and review (at least in a few cases) would be valuable, since I was mainly following tradition when I did the tagging.
The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:01, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Hi Mark,
what's your stance on having an article about a Wikimedia project promoted to FA status and having it featured on the Main Page? Over at Wikinews, we are considering to polish up the Wikinews article on Wikipedia to FA quality (with a decent history, description of the processes, quotes from example articles, statistics, etc.), in part to make more people aware of the project. Would you be opposed to that article eventually becoming featured like any other?-- Eloquence * 21:49, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
Zürich has been nominated on Wikipedia:Requested moves for a page move to Zurich. Perhapse you might like to express your opinion about this proposed move on talk:Zürich. Philip Baird Shearer 10:06, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Thought you might like this: http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Blue_Gene -- Slowking Man 23:44, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
I see that this article is slated for main page on April 11. Since the guy's birthdate is April 13, why don't you swap the article on April 11 with the April 13 article, and make the FA happen on his birthday? Just a thought -- JuntungWu 07:40, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Hey there. I've suggested at User talk:Violetriga/statusdevelopment that the tags on talk pages be made a more consistent design. It wouldn't make any process change to what happens for FA already. I'd be very grateful of any comments you could make. Thanks, violet/riga (t) 13:12, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Mark, thanks for scheduling Tamil language for April 14. -- Sundar ( talk · contribs) 05:51, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
Could you please archive the next time you delete old items. I couldn't find the answer to a question I just posted yesterday. Mgm| (talk) 09:20, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
I like Violet's idea. Do you think it's a good idea to hold a poll/vote over the idea and if it passes have a design contest? This way both Violet and JDG get what they want. Overall look would be more consistent and JDG could suggest another look. And not in the least, we'd have a wider consensus. Mgm| (talk) 19:55, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
It would be so wonderful to always have edit summaries to read. Hyacinth 03:35, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Many thanks for reverting the vandalism on my page. I don't always mind a little vandalism: the way I see it, it's just nice to be noticed... Judging from his history, it looks like he was going alphabetically down the list of admins. Thanks again! – Clockwork Soul 03:36, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I think Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios could make a great featured article. It doesn't quite meet the requirements yet, but it could with a little work. In light of the debates and cases about digital piracy and the obligations of hardware/software creators, the affirmation/modification/elimination of the Sony precedent is a key issue for the future of information technology.
Since you've worked on the article in the past, feel free to take another look to bring it "up to code" for a nomination. Feco 21:05, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I made , a spoken version of Timpani, for Wikipedia:WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia. Timpani is the April 13th FA. Would you like to link it from somewhere? User:Luigi30 ( Υσηρ ταλκ ΛυηγηΛ) 23:25, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Can we not have any related to UK politics featured on the front page during the UK general election campaign? I think it might make Wikipedia look like it's endorsing the Conservatives (or alternatively endorsing Labour by reminding people of Thatcher). JuntungWu 10:57, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC) UK elect
Would Saturday 4 June and Sunday 5 June work for you? Or even the weekend before that? -- mav 13:56, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
At the NASA meatball page, you wrote that you had contacted NASA for permission to use the meatball. It would be very nice to be able to use it in the NASA copyright tag (see discussion), so I wonder if you ever got an answer and if the permission applies to all of Wikipedia. Jonas Olson 22:40, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Any idea why the date was changed to June?
Please list all your available dates in the table at Wikipedia:Meetup/Wikipedians of the East Coast field trip#Date. Thanks. -- brian0918 ™ 18:34, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for your support on my RfA! Not *quite* sure what I did to earn such an enthusiastic response, but I shall attempt to put the shiny new buttons to good use. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 20:14, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Mark, what do we do about a really bizarre user that is up on an RfC? I'm referring to User:SamuraiClinton. He was at one point the "Mr. Suffix" vandal and then created a user name. He has not only done some of the strangest edits I've ever seen since then, he's created a sockpuppet account at UserSuperDude115. This individual has completely ignored all attempts for us to help him. Would you take a look at his RfC and his contributions and let me know if an ArbCom is warranted? Help! - Lucky 6.9 03:34, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This article is just made-up nonsense; what should I do about it? I'm not a sysop. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Father_Damien XavierLucinius
I just wanted to draw your attention to the idea of posting a much shorter spoken introduction in concert with the "Today's featured article" section on the main page tomorrow. Thanks! Demi T/ C 08:24, 2005 Apr 20 (UTC)
Hi. I just was wondering why you removed the Gowanus Canal nomination from the featured article candidates page, but left the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs nomination which is older. Thanks. -- Howrealisreal 18:33, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Just curious how you know that edit was Lir. Snowspinner 23:10, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
Could you promote Kalimpong to a Featured Article today? I will be away for a week or two starting tomorrow, and I would like to have the satisfaction of knowning that the article is featured. I nominated it last saturday (maturing time will be this sunday) and it has got 10 direct supports and 0 objects. Thanks. = Nichalp ( talk · contribs)= 14:14, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
Well, I wouldn't blame ITN that much. Lately, DYK has been rather inconsistent in length, too. I have been trying to keep Sel. Anns. at 12 to 16 lines (on my screen) but it's tough maintaining it sometimes. :-(
Since you asked, I won't move the midline on the MainPage again, unless I really have to. (But I do want to know: why not ?) Glad that someone besides me is actually watching over things. -- PFHLai 23:37, 2005 Apr 22 (UTC)
Hi, I wonder why 3 to 3 is a reject. Mav proposition has been attempted, a mediation did not work, it was left ignored... this is not only a content issue. Coolcat hasen't stopped yet! He deletes my posts on articles talk-pages... archivate posts made hours ago etc... The number of people having decided to add their names has grown, and now the thing get rejected, there has been a great deal of evidences, and more to come. Fadix 02:09, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The DC Meetup date has been finalized to May 7/8. Even if you can only come one of the days, that's still fine. Please watch this page for new details, which will be posted in the next couple days: Wikipedia:Meetup/Wikipedians of the East Coast field trip -- brian0918 ™ 16:11, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Hello, Raul, er.. Mark. What is repulsive about it? And how can it be improved so as to be acceptable to your fine standards of decency and integrity? - SV| t| add 23:36, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Hm. I use firefox too, and I dont get a bottom slider. At 30px high it only shows the up and down arrows, which IMHO looks alright. Maybe its the width setting, or the text setting. Do you mind giving me a little direct fb sometime later? I agree its a bit much, but AFAICT the Requests links on RC dont work at all anyway. I had thought maybe a bigger list would attract more interest more regularly. If only for users to customise for themselves - SV| t| add 01:04, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
SV: |
Appreciate that you're watching out for vandalism on AAAI! =D - SocratesJedi | Talk 02:28, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I just wanted to say hello. Sorry about the intrusion on the Arbitration of Netoholoic. Are you filipino? hispanic? Habla espanyol? Do still remember the Bigfoot spoof on the greenhouse image? I work as reporter here in Japan.-- Jondel 11:18, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oh its no big deal really. There's enough fish in the ocean to not have to take things too seriously.I saw that you are studying both electronics and biology? Amazing. Have you encounetered bio-perl? Bio informatics. I wish I could study that. I have lots of crazy but sound ideas. -- Jondel 00:00, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Hi Raul, I added my Mallika Sherawat link (mallikasherawat.org) to the Mallika Sherawat page on wikipedia but it was blocked by you. Was I doing something wrong? Sorry I was not aware of it as being wrong. Is there a possibility in getting unblocked? :(
Regards, Faizan
Thanks Raul. I really appreciate this. :) I will make sure I read the rules next time before adding anything else.
Raul,
Please accept my apologies for the factual error on my contribution last week to the Signpost, The Report On Lengthy Litigation. This is my first week filling in for Michael Snow, and a bit overzealously I submitted what (I had intended) to be a preliminary draft late Thursday night. Unfortunately, other unforseen obligations prevented me from updating it, and in the days following there was a spate of activity which was therefore unaccounted for.
Unfortunately, it is too late in the week to alter the article; however, in the upcoming edition I will not only account for the changes but will prominently note my mistake to make clear that I was, in fact, in error. I hope you will pass along my apologies to the ArbCom and any who were offended by my unacceptable haste. Wally 01:32, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Template:Medical, Template:Portal, Template:Project usage -- mav 04:27, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Hi Raul,
I thought the conclusion of the discussion on multi-stubbing was that if it would help the appropriate editors get to the article it was useful (as long as there aren't more than two).
Sometimes it's very difficult to determine which stub is more appropriate for an article, and it could easily be sought out by people interested in more than one subject, and yet it's not a common enough case for a new stub category.
If there's a different protocol for this, please let me know -- I'll be happy to adhere to it.
-- Avocado 18:20, 2005 Apr 30 (UTC)
I apologize. I figured that because of the widespread controversy it deserved at least a mention. Will not be added again. ekimdrachir 00:49, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
Netoholic is listed as an involved party at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Xiong, Xiong vs Netoholic. You are noticed as Netoholic's mentor.
Please note that this is not a hostile request for further findings against Netoholic. I am content with ArbCom's current findings and am happy that he and I go peacefully and do not tread on each other's toes. — Xiong 熊 talk * 01:52, 2005 May 1 (UTC)
Hey, what's up with meetup planning? You emailed, I responded, and I haven't heard anything since. Isomorphic 06:08, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
Hiya Raul, I notice you (accidentally) removed categories from some templates. Could you watch out when pasting in the new template design that you don't remove them please! :) Talrias ( t | e | c) 08:10, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
I've noticed you changed Template:Cleanup to look like ClockWorkSoul's design in the contest. The thing is, that the cleanup template isn't part of the contest and with the not subst: use of the template its image could hog the server.
Also, I personally think there's no need to make the template larger and more obstrusive than it needs to be. Would you mind reverting or at least making it a little less in your face? Mgm| (talk) 11:01, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
A few worries about this:
It's not that I'm saying that you've got it all wrong, but you need to give citations and more information. Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 17:15, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
Ah, sorry — I'll try to contact the anon. Otherwise, I'm inclined to delete it as a hoax of some kind. Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 17:28, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
Hello, Raul654. How bad do you want Polish Constitution of May 3, 1791 as the featured article tomorrow? It's already an Selected Anniversary, and there aren't that many to choose from on May 3. It's Constitution Day in both Poland and Japan on this day. I think it will not be nice to feature the constitution of one country but not the other, and I don't want to take both out of Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/May 3. Can you help ? -- PFHLai 21:53, 2005 May 2 (UTC)
Incidentally, I agree that most articles improve while on the Main Page. If there is an error in the facts presented, it is good for everyone to have the ability to correct it on the spot. But I'm preaching to the choir. 205.217.105.2 22:31, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
Personal opinion: I think that this page move crossed the line. User:Xiong's article deserves to be in the Wikipedia namespace as a Wikipedia thinktank article just as much as his Wikipedia:Meta-templates considered harmful. It is long-winded, and it does cover things that probably don't belong in the article. On the other hand, for those who are visually oriented, it gives a good idea of how transclusion works, and it does a better job of covering the problems of using templates instead of just focusing on the problems of meta-templates. BlankVerse ∅ 01:29, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
IИ SФVIET ЯUSSIA JOKE MAKES YOU !!!< | ||
This prize is for given to those that have made the bestest IИ SФVIET ЯUSSIA jokes on IRC #wikipedia. So, The Party Degrees that Komrade Raul654/archive6 is being awarded with the Red Flag of the Motherland! AAAAH! MOTHEЯLAИD!!! Komrade Raul654/archive6, we salute you! DA! |
Project2501a 01:43, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
Please add this page to your Watch list, and feel free to bring any relevant discussion there. -- Netoholic @ 00:19, 2005 May 5 (UTC)
Unfortunately not--I fly back to Chicago for the summer that very day. I'll look for you guys from the plane, though. Anyway, hope all goes well and give my warm wishes to all who can make it. Meelar (talk) 18:20, May 5, 2005 (UTC)
Hey, it was cool meeting you in DC. See you around. — thames
Thanks for putting Francis Petre on the main page today, I appreciate it. Having seen the quick and efficient way the multiple vandalism was dealt with today, I am "almost" coming around to your view on protecting (or not protecting) the main page. Thanks again its great to see a relatively, globally, obscure individual have a few moments of fame. Giano | talk 19:26, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
Please update the m:Www.wikipedia.org template. It's not fair how a language bearing a Wikipedia with, for example, 232 articles is not listed on the same template a language bearing a Wikipedia with, for example, 111 articles is. It's also seen as racism directed at the speakers of these languages, and/or thinking that the languages are not real.
Here are the HTML tags - all you have to do is copy them to the template:
Georgian (ქართული) wiki: ka - 768 articles Armenian (Հայերեն) wiki: hy - 542 articles Bengali (বাংলা) wiki: bn - 454 articles Macedonian (Македонски) wiki: mk - 354 articles Northern Sami (Sámegiella) wiki: se - 283 articles Breton (Brezhoneg) wiki: br - 232 articles Ossetian (Ирон æвзаг) wiki: os ( http://os.wikipedia.org) - 218 articles Tok Pisin wiki: tpi - 105 articles
To incorporate them, type [http://{{ISO CODE}}.wikipedia.org {{NATIVE NAME FOR LANGUAGE}}. [[User:NazismIsntCool|{{ NazismIsntCool/sig}} Nazism isn't cool]] 07:30, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
With Wikipedia receiving featured status, how could I not write about it in my signpost article? The nomination mentioned 2 previous FACs and two PR requests. Are there any other nominations and PR requests that aren't documented as well, I should know about? Mgm| (talk) 13:54, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
I don't know if I still tell you these things, or if it's handled by someone else (or on a particular page), but the "recently featured" list for the Main Page is wrong--it doesn't list Samantha Smith, even though she was yesterday's featured article. According to the May archive, it appears that her article was not included in the list for tomorrow or the next day either. I'd fix it myself, but I suspect I'd screw it up, and anyway I'm positive you'll be much faster at it than I am. Thanks, Jwrosenzweig 00:36, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
I've been doing some impostor hunting lately, seeing as how we've had a rash of them lately and all, and you got the following hits: RauI654 ( talk · contribs). Of course, this may be nothing, but I thought I would let you know. – Clockwork Soul 05:12, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
I just thought suddenly: whom I can always count to do his work on Wiki? Silently, in the background, while we mess around on FAC and related, there is Raul654, withouth whom the FA would be...well, most likely wouldn't be. So...
I, Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk do hereby, and with all due and deserved ceremony, award you, Raul654 a The Working Man's Barnstar for your excellent and unending work regarding keeping featured article candidates and related up and running. It is hugely appreciated. Thank you. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 01:28, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
So, dear mentor, how long must we put up with this? The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:07, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
Hi Mark,
Just to let you know that your photo Image:Lincoln statue.jpg is making a reappearance as Pic of the Day on the 19th. I've used the previous caption, but you can make any changes at Wikipedia:Picture of the day/May 19, 2005 - Solipsist 08:23, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
I am so sorry I couldn't make Brickskeller! I had a minor pet crisis that I had to deal with and it kept me busy all night. Did y'all have fun? · Katefan0 (scribble) 15:06, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
I don't feel that being a party to a revert war is a very good way to "mentor" me. If anyone have an issue with my edit, and I'm not explaining myself well, it is your responsibility to help me communicate. I think this applies if it is you that has an issue. Why didn't you try to talk to me first? Why didn't you make any use of the Talk page before reverting me? I hope you can see how I'm confused as to how you're going to help me on an on-going basis if you're not following the mentorship process. Neither you nor Firebug (which I reported to you as being a thorn in my side) made any attempt to discuss my edit. I made use of the talk page at the time I made the change in the first place (see Template talk:Notpolicy#Wording and formatting). I'm doing my part already. -- Netoholic @ 16:45, 2005 May 13 (UTC)
Don't I get any acknowledgment that I've already complied with this? I pointed a link where I documented my reasons for the change. Firebug reverted out of spite against me, and didn't comment on Talk. You reverted probably in good faith, but failed to use the talk. At least Uninvited used the talk page. As I said, I'm doing my part using the hell out of talk pages. I wish you'd give me credit or benefit of the doubt before laying down restrictions. And please lead by better example and use freaking talk pages yourself. -- Netoholic @ 19:23, 2005 May 13 (UTC)
Are you going to vote in the new poll (right where they deleted the majority support vote) or are you going to boycott on principle? - Tεx τ urε 17:32, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
Why were our "defensive" comments "cleaned up", while the original "accusations" ("There are two users who have taken a rather obsessive stance with regards to me.") were left intact? - Omegatron 18:55, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
Paul Beardsell edited the Proposed decision page of the arbitration case. My comment [1], diff [2], please read it before voting on case, the last principle was added by him. Tkorrovi 12:02, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
I don't know if you've noticed it yet, but User:Levzur has put Bagrationi and Democratic Republic of Georgia both back on the FAC page. In reviewing my own comments on the DRG nomination, I found someone else (I haven't investigated the page history yet) had put strikeouts through four of my objections that, after reviewing the article today, still stand. slambo 15:31, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
Much appreciated. Pcb21| Pete 21:35, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
Hi Mark,
Knowing that you have more than a passing interest in military history, can you take a look at the second para on the caption for Wikipedia:Picture of the day/May 22, 2005. The fact that nearly all active deployments of paratroopers in combat have been a disaster, is something that I vaguely recall from a documentary I may have seen years ago, so it could do with a second opinion. -- Solipsist 20:24, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
Like before, would you please look through my DC pics and see if there anything feature worthy there. →Raul654 06:42, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
Hi; I'm sorry to be bothering you concerning this, but Wikipedia:Chess championship is up for a VfD. Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Chess_championship Please vote to keep this thing alive... this is so lame that I need to ask people to help out here. Linuxbeak | Desk 03:43, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
In the finding of fact (Tkorrovi and Paul Beardsell case) only 1 out of 10 personal attacks mentioned was by me and even this was about how I named his Paul Beardsell's personal attack against me. And as a remedy, I was proposed to be indefinitely banned from editing the article. This is severely unjust, any punishment must be proportional to the misconduct. You give me an indefinite ban for a single comment, equal to indefinite ban to Paul Beardsell for numerous personal attacks against me during a year, which, as you see, I did not reply with personal attacks, except maybe only once (I'm human), in spite of everything which I might feel, I think this is civil behaviour. I'm going to be punished for attacks made against me. Tkorrovi 17:37, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
An alternative to deletion of Template:Sisterproject. Doing double transclusion, as Jamesday and Tim Starling have both said, is a drain on system resources. On the other hand, having some consistent guide to similar templates (such as the sister projects or the stub templates) is a good idea (you should have seen all the different designs for topic stubs before template:metastub and template:metapicstub were created). Whether this style guide is another template that is "subst:" when the new template is created, or copied-and-pasted (as Netoholic has insisted is the only way to do it) is debatable. My own opinion is that the copy-and-paste method will mean that it will be much less likely to be used and be more likely to result in non-matching templates.
The alternative: Add some explanation text to the design template that will explain how it should be used, and prevent it from being used in double transclusion. For example: for the metastub template, the text might be something like:
After creation of each design template with the additional text, each one should then be protected from further modification. BlankVerse ∅ 10:42, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
Raul, I noticed your comments re "User:Netoholic/Mentoring cleanup" above, could you clear up a little further? Where it says on the page, "This section is only to be used to report ongoing problematic editing by Netoholic", I asked a few days ago if I don't get to list ongoing problematic editing by others (relevant to Netoholic) anywhere. I also mentioned a current instance (current then). You got any comment? Seems to me ongoing stuff apparently designed (for example) to provoke Netoholic can be important to report.-- Bishonen | talk 06:15, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
Hi Raul - any objection to my moving Bigleaf hydrangea to its scientific name at Hydrangea macrophylla? The species has several common names (Bigleaf, French, Hortensia, Lacecap, Mophead), none with any noticeably greater currency than any other, so I think the scientific name is the best/most useful. Also the majority of the 100 Hydrangea species don't have any English name at all, and if/when these get individual pages (inevitably at their scientific name), the one listed at an English name would be out of sync. - MPF 13:35, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
Looks like you uploaded Image:Millie and Barbara Bush.jpg but didn't give source or copyright status--could you update that, pretty please? Thanks. Elf | Talk 20:29, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
Hmm. OK, thanks. Elf | Talk 21:20, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
Articles which users reverted my edits. -- Cool Cat My Talk 23:35, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
I am tired of dealing with this. I am open for suggestions. --
Cool Cat
My Talk 23:38, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
We don't have any set policy I can point to. IMO if their leaving adminship was truly voluntary--i.e., they left because they were on extended Wikivactaion, or didn't think they could keep up with the task (though that doesn't both a lot of current less active admins) they should have it back for the asking. After all, admins just go inactive, are listed as inactive, then say "I'm back" and resume their active status and noone challenges it.
OTOH, if they left in a storm ("taking my marbles and leaving," etc.) maybe they should stand new.
How about this? Since it is bureaucrat's job to decide on adminship, returning admins could ask any bureaucrat to reinstate them. Then that bureaucrat would need two other bureaucrats to agree, and then just do it. If any bureaucrat disagrees, they stand for seven days.
We could avoid this whole thing if we ask Anthere and Angela not to deadmin voluntarily--just list them inactive. If an admin is removed "for cause" or insists on being de-admined anyway, start them all over again for 7 days. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 00:33, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
Hey, Raui! I will start translating the Hebrew article on Gonen tonight. Danny 09:58, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
You recently removed grunge music from Wikipedia:Featured article candidates without any explaination for whether it failed or became a featured article. Please respond on the article's talk page. -- LGagnon 20:24, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
I have mprotected Image:Senate chamber.JPG for tomorrow. This file comes from the Wikimedia Commons. Gdr said the file there has to be protected, too. (See this on my talk page.) I am not an Admin at the Commons, so I can't protect the file from that end. Could you protect it, please ? Thanks. -- PFHLai 00:37, 2005 May 26 (UTC)
"Blanking, per arbcom clarification decision." I'll accept the arbcom decision, but would be grateful if you could provide a link. — Itai ( f&t) 10:50, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
Raul - thanks for your help with settling this. Could you unprotect
Template:Commonscat? Looks like a casualty.
Also, I still would like to turn Template:sisterproject into something useful, and I've made a mock-up. I'll probably archive all the old "meta-template" discussion on the talk page of that template, and go in this new direction (since it's a handy page name). -- Netoholic @ 13:14, 2005 May 26 (UTC)
Shmuel Gonen. Danny 12:06, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
Hello,
I’m a historian working at the Center for History and New Media at George Mason University ( http://chnm.gmu.edu/) and we are very interested in digital historical works, including people writing history on Wikipedia. We’d like to talk to people about their experiences working on articles in Wikipedia, in connection with a larger project on the history of the free and open source software movement. Would you be willing to talk with us about your involvement, either by phone, a/v chat, IM, or email? This could be as lengthy or brief a conversation as you wish.
Thanks for your consideration.
Joan Fragaszy
jfragasz at gmu dot edu
Hi Raul, I wanted to reply to your comment. I actually am working with several professors in the history department for their own study on the history of the free and open source software movement. We would like to include peer-produced works of history, with articles on Wikipedia and digital genealogy projects as the most familiar examples. This study is part of a larger project on the history of science, technology, and industry. You can read more about it on our website: http://echo.gmu.edu. Please feel free to contact me with any questions you have about our intentions. Best regards, Joan Fragaszy.
Hi. To let you know, I have replied to your concerns at my RFA. ✏ OvenFresh ² 18:37, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
Hi Mark,
Its probably on your watchlist, but I thought you would be interested in the additions I made to the Wikipedia:Copyright FAQ about the rights and restrictions affecting photographers, which whilst not strictly anything to do with copyright nevertheless appear to be closely related frequently asked questions.
The link to the UK guide is really helpful and covers a wide range of issues in concise summary. The US link is OK, but seems to be more confrontational and doesn't cover some of the issues relating to photographing artwork. Do you know of a better short guide for US photographers.
Both are quite good about addressing recent issues with subjects which are thought to be of interest to terrorist. I was recently threatened by a couple of police women for taking a photograph in a London underground station, so those sections were of particular interest to me. -- Solipsist 18:50, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
Hello, I just wanted to remind you about the aforementioned page. When you remove an admin candidate from RfA, it should then be added to current administrators and recently created admins, or unsuccessful candidacies as appropriate. I added Wonderfool to the latter.
My condolences on your mentorship. — Ben Brockert (42) UE News 02:00, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
Hi! I noticed that you intended to add a media file to the article Dmitri Shostakovich, but the link there doesn't seem to actually link to a media file... Perhaps a mistake? -- KittySaturn 04:10, 2005 May 27 (UTC)
Hi, Raul654, thanks for your comment. Please see my response on my talk page. The short answer, is by accident. Sorry, about that. I would never, nor have I ever, intentionally follow a well thought-out edit summary with an edit summary-less one. El_C 10:12, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you again, but I submitted the edit with the summary, yet it ins't registering. The edit summary read (I still have the page open) : Raul, you can delete it elsewhere (though perhaps it should be exapnded there). We arrived at consensus on the talk page to note it in the Lead, as an important development. Danny, what do you think?
El_C 10:31, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
I suggested Link (Legend of Zelda) for the Main Page some time ago on Wikipedia talk:Tomorrow's featured article, and you told me there were too many unsourced, fair use images, and I pretty much forgot about it. However, with User:Master Thief Garrett, I removed a few superfluous images, properly tagged the other ones and added source information (including the emulator used to take the OoA screenshot). The lead picture was changed to include a promotional picture for the upcoming Twilight Princess, and I've tried to replace pictures found on third party sites with images directly from Nintendo's site. Is there any hope it could be put on the main page now? Phil s 16:46, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
Hi, Raul, I hope you liked the Gonen article. I have to say that regarding the dispute with ElC, I tend to agree with him. The revelations about Kippur really shook up Israeli society, and continue to reverberate today, especially in regard to the people's trust of the political system. It is a very essential aspect of the war and should be reiterated. Just my $0.02. Danny 01:09, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
Take a look at Template talk:WikiProject Polish Army. Halibu tt 05:26, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
Yo. I accidentally overwrote one of your images on Commons. It gave me the "changing filename" warning, and I didn't notice that it was also giving an "already exists" warning. Anyway, I overwrote Image:National Museum of African Art.jpg, so if you want to upload yours again over mine, go ahead. Sorry about this. Isomorphic 07:44, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
Good sir, I am writing to ask for the long awaited advancement of Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Starfleet ranks and insignia to Featured article status. In the second nomination the following items were handled:
I feel Ive done everything possible to make this into a featured article candidate. I now have five supports and one object and the object I beleive was handled. I left a message on the Users talk page asking him to confirm, but this was 4 days ago and I have heard nothing.
I also apologize for the nasty debate which occured. The user who started it I feel had no good intentions and was arguing against the very existence of the article. I see it as a society article, speaking of ranks and insignia and how this production franchise has incorporated them over the past forty years. It is a good article and deserves recognition. Can we advance now to FA? Thanks. - Husnock 08:15, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
Hi. Please look at my reply to your request on my talk page. Thank you Almog 10:51, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
At one place, you've written "I've starting writing". Please change it to "I've started writing". -- Sundar ( talk · contribs) 10:56, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
Hi Raul... was wondering when this FA will be placed on the front page? His birthday falls on June 3rd so this might be a good date to do it. Cheers... Zerbey 17:12, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I think User:70.93.214.48 may be impersonating you. → JarlaxleArtemis 00:39, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
Oops. Never mind. Your edits temporarily disappeared from the Talk:Main Page edit history for some reason. They're back now. → JarlaxleArtemis 00:43, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
You've got it wrong, I did not vote oppose because it failed.... I cannot in good faith, based on my experiences, vote support for that nomination. If a RFDa process were in place, I would at least move to Neutral. Surely, you're not really trying to make an argument that my lone vote is disruptive of Wikipedia, even if I was trying to make a point. -- Netoholic @ 03:31, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)
Raul, I don't know where to ask. My password for the account of the same name on Tamil wikipedia has been cracked and the e-mail address is also probably changed. Because I haven't received the e-mail giving new password that I requested for. Please do something about it. There are several evidences linking this user id in en wikipedia with that. Also it has been linked to my e-mail id (sundarbecse in yahoo domain), since I've e-mailed User:Ravidreams on both the Tamil wiki and the English wiki. Also, since I'm an admin there (and also here) it needs to be blocked immediately before any damage is done. -- Sundar ( talk · contribs) 05:19, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
I suppose it is possible that it could be related to the maintence that was going on last night and/or the password salting. Either way, it sounds like you guys are OK now. →Raul654 06:15, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
on my talk page! I got all obsessed with the Deep Throat revelation and revised almost anything that linked to it. I hate red links! Now I better get back to my day job! Jokestress 08:46, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Hello, is it possible to change the background color of the to-do template to a more neutral color like light blue or light grey?-- Witkacy 12:00, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
style="background:#efefef;
efefef are three hexademical values coding for Red, green, and blue. FFFFFF is white, and 000000 is black. A moderately lighter grey would be (for example) F7F7F7. →Raul654 12:06, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
PS - RGB color model explains it in more detail. →Raul654 12:08, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
I do not understand how FAC works. I understood that an article would not be promoted while there were valid objections. I believe that there are sourcing omissions in this article and made that objection.
Peter (the "author"/sponsor) said that the sourcing was fine so I indicated where I felt there were some specific omissions. I can see that I updated the
FAC subpage just after you had promoted the article but at the time of promotion there was the open question "Anything missing?" from Peter. Have I misunderstood the process? Is it another consensus mechanism? --
Theo
(Talk) 18:57, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Have you overlooked my questions? --
Theo
(Talk) 23:17, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Whoops! Sorry, I meant to get back to you. The FAC, like most pages, works on consensus, and consensus is not unanimity. Basically, when I promote nominations, I look to see that a nomination has a certain minimum number of supports (usually at least 4), and that it has "a lot" of support (e.g., that most people - figure in the neigborhood of three quarters - support it), and that there aren't any "serious" objections. A serious objection is an objection along that lines that an article is heavily biased, or factually inaccurate, or that it is (or contains) a copyright violation. Something like this is enough to veto a nomination. In the case of the swedish language nomination, I saw a lot of support, and a handful of suggestions/objections (almost all of which were struck out), but I didn't see anything that I thought was serious. →Raul654 23:45, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
Thank you. My confusion clears: I had misunderstood the process. Theo (Talk) 07:13, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Hey Raul - Jguk is using a bizarre scheme whereby 'articles' (template container pages, really) are built using transclusion (not unlike the FAC page). What's worse is he is using the wikipedia:namespace from WikiProject subpages to hold article prose and then linking directly to that from the headings on the container page. For an example see: 2005 English cricket season (8-30 April) (a page he is putting through peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/2005 English cricket season (8-30 April)/archive1 with the intent of finishing it up before FAC). Please add your input on this practice at Wikipedia talk:Template namespace#transcluding prose. -- mav 21:27, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thanks :) -- mav 23:01, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Image:Habitat for Humanity logo.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. User:Raul654 ( talk) 13:04, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
-- The logo is obsolete now, replaced with Image:Hfh logo new.jpg -- MC MasterChef 12:18, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The image you asked about ( Image:New community on the Golan .jpg) was not added by me, but by User:Leifern. Yuber (talk) 13:28, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Hi Raul,
Apologies for bothering you in this way. My password (I'm actually Tempshill) stopped working several days ago, and the "E-mail me the password" button doesn't work. At Wikipedia:Help Desk, someone dropped your name; apparently there have been password problems for a few other people as well recently. Thanks for any help you can offer -- Tempshill2 17:04, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Now that you have taken my advice and started staying away from controversial topics - have you found your editing here more pleasant and enjoyable? →Raul654 23:52, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
I don't know enough to even begin talking about this, but you do - I was flipping through some pages when the Gamefaqs article caught my eye. So much of the entry is simply going on about their individual forums and jargon. I know other, less notable, pages have caught crap for this (especially the Kenzerco forums), but is Gamefaqs large enough to be notable? plz comment thx bye 216.158.31.195 20:02, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I noted all the suggestions on the talk page and edited the definiton to include them all. Then it is reverted without comment or discussion! Please discuss the article Sci guy 01:45, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
![]() |
Your
Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for
featured picture status,
Image:Clivia miniata1.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates.
|
Congrats! -- Spangineer ( háblame) 01:53, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks a bunch for fixing the link I was placing on The Star Spangled Banner. I missed the description tag, but I hope a recording like what I made will work for the encyclopedia. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 01:58, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thank you :)
Unfortunately, my life has been a bit crazy lately, so I haven't been able to email it within half an hour of 0:00 UTC every day (I'm sometimes a couple hours late :$). Hopefully things will clear up by the end of the month, and I'll be able to be on time more consistently :)
Thanks again for your message, I really appreciate it a lot. Take care! - Frazzydee| ✍ 14:06, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
(re: Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates#Extremely important problem!)
I think it's not the templates that are broken...
If you look at the generated source in the example you've given ( libertarianism), you can see the {{{1}}} is being expanded on the link, but not within the id attribute.
This makes me think of a recently fixed security bug, where the expansion of a template could be used to bypass the HTML filters. I saw it first at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#What was that?, which gives a date (yesterday) and a bug number ( 2304).
If the date matches with your experience, that could be that the cause (a side effect of the fix); I have not looked at the code, but I can guess the parts of the code involved in both the security fix and the recent template problems are the same.
-- cesarb 17:40, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the match. I was only a bit annoyed by the community pressure. You played a superb game and what kills me the most in hindsight was blocking my queen-side bishop with my queenside knight prematurely. SDSUPinoy 19:59, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Hello, just curious as to how you go about selecting FA's for the main page. Phoenix2 01:45, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I don't have sources for the questions you raise. Adam 06:28, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Good call on that one. It's probably one of my favourite, if not the favourite, works in the Western canon. Are you ever on AIM anymore? I need to talk to you. 216.158.31.195 18:55, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It is sort of surprising I guess, which is why I thought it would be interesting to include... I must disagree with you about "it's a bit of a stretch to categorize Benedict as an author". As Cardinal Ratzinger he kept up an incredible rate of writing and publishing. I'm not talking about internal Church stuff-- I mean books you can find on Amazon. He's authored or co-authored around 50 commercially sold books. In fact, you can see here that he's even been making some bestseller lists. JDG 20:33, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for noticing. Yes, things are getting better, though I've been less active lately as well. Been dealing with a growingly active Simple: Wikipedia. The stress around that meta-template junk was a major factor and now that it's "gone", I'm better. Thanks for your help with that. -- Netoholic @ 22:54, 2005 Jun 7 (UTC)
About the Damascus by night picture. Being a newbie and given the little time I currently can give to Wikipedia, one that will stay so for a while, I am afraid I cannot respond to your request, unless you help understand what you meant :-). In all cases, feel free to edit my contributions dear Raul654 as you seem vastly more involved in here than i ever will be -- Zelidar 21:13, 2005 Jun 9 (UTC)
Yes, I can be there...I have plans in the early/middle part of the day (EST) but other than that I should be free and I'll make a point to go into IRC and see if you're in there. Everyking 06:09, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Say, Raul, it just occured to me... Does Rabinovich actually writes AMAN? I don't believe I've seen that before. I realize you thought it was an acronym (thus, it would make sense to capitalize – but if it was, it'd be two not three letters), but it's an abbreviation. I've seen Aman used, and a quick search shows it is the prevalent use. I am, in fact, in favour of the jewishvirtuallibrary.org's A'man as the most correct name for the article/subject in English. So, unless you have any objections, I'm going to rename it accordingly. Regards, El_C 10:09, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Roger that. Why did I say three? Four! Yes, I think he errs on this in two interrelated ways: first giving the reader the impression it's a four-word acornym rather than a two-word abbrevation, & thereby also failing to convey that in Israel, it is pronounced A'man (and, in fact, rarely are the two words, Agaf Modiin, used in normal speech), similiarly to the pronounciation of Shabak (Shin Bet), or Shabas (prisons service), Magav (border service), etc. I didn't pick up on it right away since I haven't read much of this sort of material through English language sources. *** Quick question: is my spelling of inteligence for these purposes (as opposed to IQ, etc.) in error, or is that distinction a product of my feverish mind? TIA. El_C 21:27, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Netoholic has found himself a revert war on WP:POINT Snowspinner 15:08, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
... and Snowspinner has found himself a WP:POINT to make. -- Netoholic @ 15:11, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)
That was fairly well premature and, frankly, a cop-out. This would have been an ideal situation for you to "assist my communication" rather than pander to a tattler. Especially on WP:POINT, my
most recent edit was toward compromise, and now you've cut off that process without even discussing with me. --
Netoholic
@ 18:20, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)
Hi. I'm breaking for a bit, but I was wondering what your reasoning was for considering this to be Lir? ✏ OvenFresh ² 20:59, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Raul, have a serious issue on Zoroastrianism. It says:
I have a user on the talk page telling me that this is not POV writing, but standard scholarly opinion. Your contribution to this conversation would be most appreciated. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:15, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Good day. As Featured Articles and things related are generally your gig, I thought I'd let you know that I have created a list, not dissimilar from the Wikipedia:Featured articles page, of Former featured articles.
I did this in part for convenience (as the only way to track down what had been a featured article was to dig through the archive - which is exactly what I had to do to create this page). I believe a list like this is important because it illustrates that a page can evolve both ways, and that wikipedia standards have changed over the years.
I also created a shortcut for it, tweaked the {{ featuredtools}} template, and added references to it on the various FA-related pages. I was rather bold with this, so if you see that it needs improvement, (obviously) just change it.
Thanks for your time. -- Jeffrey O. Gustafson 06:47, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Hello. How to mark Image:Shakespeare.jpg to deletion because it is moved to commons as commons:Image:Shakespeare.jpg ? I am sysop on pl: Wikipedia and I can delete his image only on pl: Wikipedia ? Lzur 09:21, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I know :) {{NowCommons|Image:Shakespeare.jpg}}. Lzur 09:39, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Hi, Raul. I think I was the lone "object" vote on this article. This is no big deal, and in the end the article (on one of my top sports heros, along with Jim Ryun) ended up quite good. However, my objection was that the article was pretty much a "book report" on Jane Leavy's fine book. She told Koufax's story in an interesting fashion, interspersing his life history in the midst of describing, inning by inning, the devolution of his perfect game. The wikipedia biography reads in similar fashion, unlike other sports bios. Now that I think of it, I have done similar work ... reading a book on a topic and then later basing a wiki article on that knowledge. "Alfred Lee Loomis" comes to mind. But for that reason, I didn't think those kind of articles were FA status. Again, this is an observation, not an objection. If I'd felt strongly about it, I would have kept hammering the point on the FAC page. Just one more thing to keep in mind. Sfahey 03:40, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
{{ Disinfopedia}}, which you created, has been replaced by {{ Sourcewatch}}. Because there are no longer any articles that use the old template, the redirect is no longer necessary. Therefore Template:Disinfopedia has been nominated for deletion at WP:TFD. BlankVerse ∅ 11:10, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Congress has recently enacted a certain law which I think you need to be aware of. -- Jondel 05:52, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I somehow neglected that. Thanks for pointing it out. *Satis 01:54, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
![]() |
Your
Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for
featured picture status,
Image:Cleistocactus strausii2.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates.
|
Hey Raul654: I saw this was just posted by 62.253.96.42, and I thought you might want to know. Beyond that, it looks like he's back re-vandalizing the pages you reverted. Check out Special:Contributions/62.253.96.40; at least the last two are image removals. Thought you might want to deal with the obvious horsehockey at RfC and maybe give 62.253.96.42 a good thrashing. Happy hunting! Essjay · talk 09:51, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
Hey, Mark: Allareequal has been up to a pretty annoying thing today... pretty much all day, nonstop, he has been making nonsensical, overly generalised, nonencyclopaedic lists, and he refuses to stop. He has way too many to list them individually on VfD. Could you help me out with him? I don't know what to do - it's not really a case of vandalism, just a very stubborn, unintentionally abusive user. Thanks. jglc | t | c 18:09, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Hey Raul, thanks for your message. I really appreciate it. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 21:38, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
If Wikipedia's elite chess tournament isn't accepting new players, where can I sign up for the next one? -- WikiFan04 ß 00:21, 16 Jun 2005 (CDT)
When I suggested this for featured-article-of-the-day, you posted a note wondering if we could get an illustration other than a map. I checked the web-site of the Middletown, Ohio, public library, and found a general drawing of a canalboat from that era (circa 1840). I've posted that to the article and moved the map down in the article. PedanticallySpeaking 15:01, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
Need some admin help on this. User:Shrek32 has been adding links to fictional video games and movies in the fictional "Amber Sparks" and "Brooke Fox" series to various Lists of Movies and Lists of Video Games (i.e. Xbox 360, Nintendo Revolution, Nintendo DS, Gameboy Advance, Playstation 3, Playstation 2, Playstation Pocket). He just started adding entries for "The Doodlebops" - which also do not exist. His rate of vandalism is very high (just look at Special:Contributions/Shrek32; could you do a personal favour to me and help me out with shutting him down?
I am also submitting to Vandalism in Progress, just in case.
jglc | t | c 21:05, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
FYI, I have responded to your comment on WP:AN. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:15, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
You have voted to close this case. I object: the remedy aginst me is still unsupported by FoF, and my questions [5] remain unanswered. - User:William M. Connolley
Raul654 of the Wikipedians, I hearby promote you to the rank of Wiki Administrator, with all the privileges and responsibilities that it entails. :)
This is your ASCII insignia: (*****~)
func (talk) 18:52, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thanks in advance :)
Project2501a 17:44, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
OK, thank you for telling me. Everyking 05:53, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Happy birthday Mark! =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:30, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
oyaji-san, happy birthday! here's your present! Project2501a 12:28, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the only birthday present I have for you is a note to ask you to change the copyright tag on this image... You uploaded it under {{ PD-Germany}}, but this tag did not accurately state German copyright law. The image is not yet PD; however, it may be usable under fair use. Could you consider changing the tag to {{ fairuse}}. Cheers, and happy birthday! Physchim62 13:00, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I am very distressed at the speed with which you took down the Everyking mentorship discussion from the RfAr page once you got the 4th vote you were jockeying for. How does it hurt to leave it up for more than a few minutes so we could see who placed the votes? And once you've changed the rules of an arbcomm decision and parole, it would be nice if you'd notify the other admins so we know what to do and what not to do when we encounter someone who apprears to be violating their parole. Rick K 21:42, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
The preliminary decision is already in, and the majority votes have already been cast. Rick K 04:39, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
Hey, Raul. Since I renamed IDoMI back to A'man, the A'man page looks strange on my watchlist. Would you know how to fix it? Thanks in advance. Oh, and happy belated BDay! :) El_C 11:40, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
While checking which images I'd like to save ( Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Image_copyrights), I noticed that Image:Iwo Jima Flag Raising.jpeg was uploaded by you. Consider changing the copyright tag. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:38, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
...for helping me out. And, happy birthday! Looks like I got back just in time...it's your birthday, but I got the present. :^) Have an extra slice of cake for both of us, hear? - Lucky 6.9 20:41, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
My opponent just came out of the hospital. he was in a car accident. i think i'll wait a bit till he recovers and lets me know he's ok :) Project2501a 22:56, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I have a question: I wish to create a category of FA's called "Awards and Decorations." I know there are some decorations stuck under the military and war section ( Medal of Honor), chivilary ( Order of the Bath) and culture and society ( Hero of Belarus). I was wondering if you would have any problems with that? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 05:20, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
If you don't like it, feel free to change it. However, the capitalization of the link is not seen by the user (except on the status line), and it doesn't affect the ability to link to the article because the software automatically capitalizes the first letter in all links, so (to me) it's not a big deal. Russ Blau (talk) 16:34, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
I'm pleased that you added media files to the article on Giuseppe Cambini. Unfortunately, there is a glitch that causes each link to send me back to the Wikipedia main page, and the Info link sends me to a page that says something like "Image movement 1 .ogg doesn't exist." Del arte 22:12, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Take a look. Didn't you already yell at him for this exact reason? Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 03:24, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
Do you have a problem with my contribution to RickK's exit? 68.97.208.123 04:45, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I have a FAC ( Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Democratic Labour Party (Trinidad and Tobago)) up which has gotten comments from only three users in 12 days. I have addressed their concerns to the point where all three voted Support. However, there haven't been any more comments. Are three opinions adequate (it seems a bit thin to me), or should I go out and solicit input from other editors? Thanks. Guettarda 05:42, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Out of curiosity - is Neto's mentoring lifted? I've seen no activity on the mentoring page, and quite some WikiSpace activity by him. I'm not saying I disagree with any of that, but people were recently discussing whether mentoring actually works, so I was wondering if this was resolved, abandoned or still active. R adiant _>|< 08:02, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
Raul, I need you on IRC pronto. There's something we need to discuss. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 21:09, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
Traced two of them... one traces back to Amsterdam according to Geobytes (Whois basically says the same thing, tracing it back to an ISP based in the Netherlands), but the second ended up tracing back to an ISP in Italy. Here's the thing... that ISP was classified as a LOCAL service provider. I'm starting to think that we may have a bunch of vandals who are simply attempting to make the situation even worse. Traces I did on alleged sockpuppets of Enviroknot seem to suggest the same thing... Geobytes traced two of the four IPs it could find to Houston, a third to a city in Nevada, and a fourth to Toronto... yes, as in Canada. I've read quite a bit about a group of trolls called the GNAA... perhaps they're behind this? I seriously doubt that these IPs could all be used by the same person. Of course, I could be wrong... but it doesn't seem logical. -- Chanting Fox 04:03, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This appears to confirm my theory. →Raul654 04:23, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
Hello, my name is Floweofchivaly, working for science and history fields. I appology in advance to write this page suddenly.
I have been harrased by an admin user, User:Markalexander100, by various ways.
-- Flowerofchivalry 08:58, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Speaking to that, this is the response to your comment on my talk page:
Allow me to be the first to congrat you on successfuly defending your Thesis, Doc. Good going! One PhD down, 10 more to go! :D Project2501a 09:11, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I saw the note on your user page. Congragulations!!! 172 18:26, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
HI there, I was wondering if I could ask a favour. Since I am going to be away from a computer for pretty much this entire weekend, and I'm not sure that Washington gubernatorial election, 2004 will pass with Michael Snow's current objections. Is there any way you could hold off for a few days from taking it off the list so that I can address his obejctions? Thank you so much! Páll 18:37, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Hello, I noticed on Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship you said the following:
Yikes. I just reread the nomination in question, so I should clarify my above statement. There's definitely some very suspicious sockpuppetry going on, as well 2 people voting oppose to make a point (Netoholic and Boothy443) in violation of Wikipedia policy. On reconsideration, I think an extension is in order.
I'm curious how their votes were in violation of Wikipedia policy? Thanks. :) kmccoy (talk) 22:58, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Suffice it to say, I'm not going to rebut every point, but:
Alright, thank you for your time. kmccoy (talk) 05:27, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Here's a weird thing. I blocked Enviroknot for 12 hours at 03:46 Jun 25 for ignoring the arbcom temp injunction, but he just carried right on editing with that user name. I re-blocked at 04:28 (see block log), but it still didn't stop him. He's starting to remind me of Robert De Niro in Cape Fear. SlimVirgin (talk) 05:10, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
I have serious problems with this as a featured article. It overrelies on Rabinovich - no book could be that good, most especially in a field like this, in which the density of lies from all sides is off the scale, and everybody and book should be treated with suspicion, which I think I can justify with Rabinowitz. In a very quick glance a couple months ago it seemed to me to be quite POV, leaving out or minimizing crucial information. Judging from some comments you've made, I believe you have received a rather distorted understanding of the causes and outcome of this war from this book. If any war was ever aptly described as the continuation of diplomacy by other means, this one was, and not understanding this deeply enough leads one, and this article, to a nonstandard, ahistorical and overnarrow conclusion of even "who won." I barely missed putting them in the debate when it was a candidate - didn't realize how fast it would be closed - and I sent you an email that day - did you get it? At the very least, I don't think it should be a "today's featured article" for a while, without some real work. I hope you could bear with me, and allow me to present my objections rather slowly as the weeks pass. I was not feeling well when the debate was ongoing and a great deal of other stuff piled up.-- John Z 19:10, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
There are severe NPOV problems with choosing libertarism as a WP:FA. See the talk, please. SV| t 20:05, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I'm having an issue with Netoholic that perhaps you could review. It's not a major problem, but it is a source of irritation. On Susvolans' RFA, Netoholic voted to oppose with the comment "No Way." I was curious as to why he felt so strongly and asked "Any particular reason?". Netoholic proceeded to move my question to the comments section with the edit summary "do not challenge voters. moving comment"
From my experience, it's quite common to see questions in both the support and oppose section of an RfA. Not only has Netoholic persisted in moving my question, he hasn't made any attempt to answer it. The last I've heard from him was "You'll get a better explanaion when I see fit." Thanks for your time. Carbonite | Talk 13:32, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Since Neto is accusing me of stalking anyway, I took the liberty of looking over his contribs log. What I saw was not good. About 80% of his edits of the past couple days are part of several edit and revert wars; one to deprecate a spoiler template, one other about layout of a series of templates, and a third about an external link at Magic: The Gathering, for which he broke the 3RR today. Apart from that, his behavior towards others is incivil at best, he's made several WP:POINTs recently, has directly contravened TFD consensus and has been biting a newbie. All in all, if he hadn't been under mentorship, I would have blocked him for these disruptions for at least a day. Please look into this. Yours, R adiant _>|< June 28, 2005 21:15 (UTC)
Mark, thank you for arranging the introduction of the article. It looks great! Also, thank you for the good news. It gives me great satisfaction to know that the article will be on Wiki's main page. It's been a pleasure writting to you, take care. Marine 69-71 29 June 2005 03:49 (UTC)
Glad someone got it. - Ta bu shi da yu 29 June 2005 08:24 (UTC)
Please take a look at the recent edit histories of:
And tell me if you think these chnages, and the continued reverts to enforce them without discussion, a poll, or any attempt to reach consensus on the issue are appropriate. DES 29 June 2005 15:54 (UTC)
I agree entirely with what you said to me in private on IRC, Raul654. We need to get rid of that Jimbo Wales from the project as soon as possible. The uprising should be swift and effective. - Mark 1 July 2005 08:56 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Archived_nominations#History_of_Poland_.281945-1989.29. Note 3 objects with 3 supports make a tie, but there is also my nomination (i.e. fourth support). In addition note a positive comment by 172 and that the objections have been adressed - as far as I can tell, unfortunately none of the peope who objected decided to reply to me on FAC or via talk pages, even through I asked them to list more objectionable materia both on FAC and on their talk pages. I think this should be featured so I'd like to ask you to reconsider your decision on this one - and if you have some time, read through the article and comment yourself. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 1 July 2005 14:33 (UTC)
Raul - I thought I should tell you that you've protected the last few FA templates from moves only, rather than from edits. The "confirm protection" checkbox has disappeared in MediaWiki 1.5, so one need only fill in the reason and hit the button. (I fixed July 1 through 4 already.) — Dan | Talk 1 July 2005 15:16 (UTC)
Theres been a few claims by people that Vanilla Ninja isn't main page worthy. Personally i'm grateful for your using it. Its a victory, in a way, for tackling systematic bias as its a topic which has relevance to Central and Eastern Europe, and not the US or UK like nearly all topics are. The objections I believe are biased by people never hearing of the group. The article passed its FAC, and I think those judgements still stand. Hedley 1 July 2005 17:41 (UTC)
I've written up a new policy proposal, with assistance from Ed Poor, to set out some guidelines and basic principles for dealing with naming conflicts of the Gdanzig type. Could you take a look at Wikipedia:Naming conflict and let me know what you think? -- ChrisO 1 July 2005 22:14 (UTC)
Saying that it "looks good" is more than I'm willing to say for this article, but I agree that an effort has been made on my actionable objections. Since that's the usual standard for promotion, I'm okay if you go ahead. In reality, the article is probably as good as at least a few of our featured articles, but I tend to have pretty high standards for them. And in this case I know enough about the subject to be fairly confident that some flaws remain, but I'd have to do more research to assess them properly. -- Michael Snow 3 July 2005 05:03 (UTC)
Speaking of which, I have taken care of all the objections that have been listed. A lot of people have not updated their opinion of the article, and apart from a few details, there's not that much more left to add. Any chance of taking it off the FAC page and adding it to the list of featured articles? :) Thanks! Pall.
Good sir. Your comments would be welcome on some recent attacks made against me on the above FAC. A pretty nasty accusation was made that I had gone through and deleted peoples objections, without consent, on the last FAC. For the record, I stated that was a lie. The user in question (as we know) turned the page into a general debate on the validity of a fiction article as an FAC. The debate itself was moved to the talk page and then to a general project discussion page. The user never objected or said anything on the talk page but now has posted that his comments were deleted without consent. This guy has really come out of the woodwork with open dislike of both me and the article. I have some theories as to why but wouldnt dare post them here! On a side note, the FAC above needs to closed. It was renomated far too soon by a user named Coolcat and the article, itself, is far from being an FAC. Thanks for your time and support. - Husnock 3 July 2005 21:50 (UTC)
You just threatened to block me. Am I breaking a rule, or are you just allowed to block people when don't like their edits? Floopy 3 July 2005 23:31 (UTC)
Your interpretation of policy is as false as your summary of the facts.
In short, while you have made some legitimate edits, it does not excuse you from following the rest of our policies, your wiki-lawyering not withstanding. →Raul654 July 4, 2005 02:49 (UTC)
Gah! This is still going? Enough wikilawyering already, if you want to inline those images, gain the consensus on the talk page. End of story. El_C 4 July 2005 03:17 (UTC)
Negative, this is about your misdirected innunedo and wikilawyering. He just warned you, I would have done the same thing. From reading everything above, I'd say he has been exceedingly patient with you, much more so than I would in his place. El_C 4 July 2005 03:32 (UTC)
Who's the "model" for the vagina picture?
[8] And: It doesn't matter if its a line drawing or a photo, that slut had her hand inside her private parts.
[9]
El_C 4 July 2005 04:12 (UTC)Thanks for moving African American literature to featured article status. Unfortunately, a minor editing issue came up and I wasn't sure if this would mess up the Wiki Featured Article system or not. The article was originally titled African-American literature (with a hyphen) but, after a discussion at Talk:African American literature the consensus view was to change the title to African American literature (with no hyphen). I moved the original page to the non-hyphenated link and I have gone back and changed all of the links I could find (except for a few personal pages). However, I wasn't sure if this change would mess up how Featured articles are programmed. Just wanted to let you know. Thanks. -- Alabamaboy 4 July 2005 02:51 (UTC)
Have a look at Intelligent Design now and Daniel Pipes! The site looks bloody awful now! I have listed it on WP:TFD. Please vote for this to be deleted and make a comment. - Ta bu shi da yu 4 July 2005 08:03 (UTC)
I have sat in the background on most of the ongoing disputes involving Yuber, but I think Fred's analysis is correct. While you're certainly right that removing categories is insufficient evidence of experience, what convinced me was Yuber's edit summary for the edit in question. Now you have my 2¢. Tomer TALK July 4, 2005 17:50 (UTC)
I don't want to take up too much of your time, but I'm wondering why no response has been given, nor action taken, in regard to Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Yuber/Proposed_decision#Point_of_Order. I'm assuming it's been overlooked, as ArbCom has expressed elsewhere their swampedness... ? Tomer TALK July 5, 2005 23:48 (UTC)
NOT AT ALL!!! :-D :-D :-D Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk July 5, 2005 01:57 (UTC)
Thanks for signing on my behalf. :-) Please see my minor concern at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/July 7, 2005. -- Sundar \ talk \ contribs July 6, 2005 06:58 (UTC)
Hey, man; So, I added a VfD notice to Maya & Miguel (game). After getting several red flags from it, I Googled, and notices of its creation are nowhere to be found; additionally, I am pretty well convinced that the account who created the entry ( User:Doctor33) is the same person as the two anonymous IP's and also User:Shrek32, the person who was adding all those fictitious entries to List of (insert game console) Games. He has removed my VfD notice from the article three times, and shows no signs of stopping or communicating with me. Does this fall under the 3RR? And whether or not it does, can you help me out with him? His spurious edits are quite annoying. jglc | t | c 7 July 2005 13:57 (UTC)
There is a proposal now in place to expand the CSD policy. An additional proposal was added to the proposed policy page. User:Netoholic reverted this addition without discussion on any talk page, although his edit summery did explain his reasons. Please see this diff and this section where I expalin why i disagree with his actions. I think the way Netoholic appraoched this was unwise and that you as his mentor, might wish to discus this with him. DES 7 July 2005 15:54 (UTC)
I concur with DropDeadGorgias here. The page says, in big, bold lettering, not to modify it. Someone did, and Netoholic removed it with a clear edit summary. There's no subtle nuances to discuss (it clearly needed to be removed) so I don't really see the need for him to have used the talk page. →Raul654 July 7, 2005 17:38 (UTC)
I'm curious, Raul, do you think Netoholic's recent unilateral "closure" of Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal and the various moves of other people's proposals related to this jsut before are also OK?
I've replied on the talk page. Long story short -- the whole procedure has become a mess. Netholic has a valid complaint that people shouldn't be changing proposals in the middle of voting, but I don't think shutting down the vote was the best idea. I have protected it until you guys can come to some kind of agreement. →Raul654 July 7, 2005 21:34 (UTC)
I note that you have not, or not yet, protected the sub pages on which actual votes are tallied, and some users are continuing to vote. If you think that voting on existing proposals must be suspended, then those pages all need protection, or at least a note about the suspension, IMO. DES 7 July 2005 21:37 (UTC)
I would not have worried except for Netoholic's history of warring over a series of templates a couple of months back. I praise Netoholic's tactful and mature handling of this particular case and apologise for misjudging him here. -- Tony Sidaway| Talk 9 July 2005 12:43 (UTC)
I appreciate your help getting involved. If you need to talk more about all this, I'll try and get on IRC in an hour or two. -- Netoholic @ 7 July 2005 21:45 (UTC)
Am I incorrect or out of line in thinking that the recent cahnges to Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion without a formal proposal, are a bit dubious? Please let me know if I am overreacting here, as I may be upset by recent events. Please look at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion for more detail. DES 7 July 2005 22:13 (UTC)
I don't know where/how to report vandalism; but you seem knowledgeable, so I thought I'd call your attention to a recent edit to Rusty Foster by Trollaxor. FYI, no reply necessary.
Dear Raul, I have a question for you. There has been a nomination of the GNAA article for FAC, maybe out of spite of the article being put on VFD. It's at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Gay Nigger Association of America. I already noticed a sockpuppet voting here, a sock puppet making the nomination, and an inactionable objection. However, is there such thing as a inactionable/discarded support vote? A comment by a user, after his vote, disturbed me: "Highly support this nomination. After so much opposition and against-the-rules VfD requests posted by filthy Zionist pigs whose ancestors should have died in the gas chambers, the GNAA article deserves some positive attention." Can something be done about it? Myself and another admin, Ta bu shi da yu, wishes for the vote to be closed for now. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 20:46, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
I'm hoping you'll help me with a problem that has gotten out of hand in the Homosexuality article and its talk page; specifically, with user 67.41.236.211. Also see: User talk:Tznkai - in which 67.41.236.211 actually deleted a private message which I posted to Tznkai, warning him about an unwarranted attack that was made against him (and also against yourself, it could be added) posted by Haiduc on the Wikipedia:LGBT notice board. Haiduc's comments about you and Tznkai were completely out of line, and I thought the targets were entitled to know what was going on - especially since Haiduc was calling for even more people in that group to come in and add to the mess. While the debates in the Homosexuality article have always been contentious, the recent stuff has truly crossed the line.
I would like to thank you for trying to clean up parts of that article, as many of us have been trying to do for a long time. Your additions were all inevitably reverted, but that's par for the course in that article. 66.216.226.34 06:58, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
I noticed your reply to Taxman, and wanted to know what your opinion was of the current situation. The person ( Kaibabsquirrel ( talk · contribs)) who is currently opposing the article appears (to me) to be a fan of Paul R. Ehrlich's work (Ehrlich's bestselling predictions of worldwide famine were prevented by Borlaug's work), and has been making some odd (to me) edits of Ehrlich's article (such as moving to the "Criticisms" section the fact that Ehrlich's biggest predictions didn't actually come to pass). -- brian0918 ™ 19:42, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
Obviously, the username is unacceptable, but what should be done? Is the proper procedure a VfD, a Vandalism warning, or what? Get back to me, and I can take care of it, or follow the proper procedure yourself; just a head's up. jglc | t | c 13:21, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
My apologies for disparaging you. I should have checked before I spoke. It is just that the whole tone of the discussion was such that I jumped to conclusions. It probably does not help that I am old enough to be your father. Still and all, I would appreciate a bit more gentleness and collegiality if you are going to get involved with the article on Homosexuality. It is a difficult and divisive topic, and it is not helpful to have someone come in and tear it to pieces who has not been there through the hard-fought compromises and the efforts to be fair all around. Cheers, Haiduc 03:20, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
O, Creator of the Meme, do you have direct links to all the stress thermometer images? siafu 16:27, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
My original set of 4 (which I introduced with this edit) seems to have been deleted (I think by Fredric when he made his set)
Here are all the english versions I know of, in chronological order:
Version set 2 - Fredric's SVG version:
Version set 3 - the 3d modelled version:
And of course, the no pants version:
They've been translated and put on commons too:
'Hope this answers your question. →Raul654 16:33, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
I would invite your participation at Wikipedia talk:Requests_for_adminship/William_M._Connolley. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:33, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
... just me! That user had not been created, so I created it and made one edit. Sorry for the confusion! - Ta bu shi da yu 03:14, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
User:Trey Stone, who is currently in arbitration, has just been blocked for the ninth [12] time since he entered arbitration on May 12th, this time for violation of the 3RR. Three arbitrators have voted for a temporary injunction that he be banned from editing political articles pending the resolution of the arbitration ( Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Trey_Stone_and_Davenbelle/Proposed_decision#Temporary_ban), which is just one arbitrator vote shy of what is needed to go into effect.
I have been reading WikiEN-l and there was a discussion of how half of the current arbitrators are away or inactive. Which means that effectively, the four of six arbs needed to do the temporary ban is not really 33.33% but 66.66%. Anyhow, reading that on WikiEN-l prompted me to put this on your talk page as it seemed the wheels of justice were grinding slowly for this very disruptive user. Thanks. -- Ruy Lopez 15:44, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
I was wondering if you, or another admin, can switch the photo from the one that is there to the new image, please. Thanks. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 00:38, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
Ha! I figured it was vandalism from some GNAA person which nobody had noticed before. It didn't quite fit in with the other arcanely amusing punishments! :-) — Dan | Talk 03:23, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
Heh, just a funny little thing. I saw a man take a picture from that position at borders and I wondered "is that guy taking a picture for wikipedia? I wish I had brought my camera" hah, and indeed it was. The question was, why did I wait when I'm not even a big fan. Cheers. gren 07:29, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
{{ reqimage}} has been that "monstrous piece of ugliness" for over a month. Why does Netoholic need to get into an revert war over that template when he has not participated at all in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Template locations#Design and layout issues, nor has he participated at all in the discussion at Template talk:Reqimage until today. I HATE revert wars, and to have Netoholic paraphrase me as the justification for this most resent revert war has me doubly pissed off. Revert wars are a pox upon the Wikipedia and Netoholic is the prime warrior. BlankVerse ∅ 08:44, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
Raul, It wasn't so much which color (talk standard or cleanup\improvement style)... The "war" was over this ugly version, which User:Who created. He's been moving discussion about it from page to page, and fairly well delaying change, but the end result is that no one wants the ugly box. -- Netoholic @ 17:31, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
Ah, ok, well Violetariga has reverted to this version, which I believe should be acceptable to everyone. →Raul654 20:39, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
Why did you revert them? I'm trying to convert to the new CSS format, and they look identical to before. -- Netoholic @ 15:41, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
Hi, I didn't know where to post this question, and since you seem to be more or less in charge of this business, I figured you would know as much as anyone I can think of. There is an article I've found ( Anatoly Karpov) that I don't think deserves to be featured anymore, mostly because I think the standards for featured articles are going up. Do you think an article that was previously considered good enough to be featured should be nominated to remove its featured status because of increasing standards? What do you think of this article in particular? -- malathion talk 22:14, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
After chasing my tail around for 1/2 an hour trying to find a page dealing with inline citations, I got fed up and asked about. The answer I got was that no such page for inline citations existed, so I created one.
The problem is I need someone of your stature to check the newly formed Inline Citation page and make sure that I got all of my ducks in a single line. I would be tremendously gratefull if you could do that for me. TomStar81 00:51, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
I really don't understand, come on IRC if you can. -- Netoholic @ 02:51, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
The projects I mentioned -
Should take quite a long time. -- Netoholic @ 05:11, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
I think Image:WWII Poland Invasion 1939-09-01.jpg would be bette then Image:German Troops In Warsaw.jpg, could you switch them? I can't figure how :( -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 09:30, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
Take a look at User:CockBot's contributions, then plz ban it instantly. jglc | t | c 18:39, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for scheduling this for the front page for 21 July, the day the 2005 Ashes start. I'm sure I'm not speaking out of turn for others by saying it's much appreciated by WP:Cricket, jguk 18:51, 19 July 2005 (UTC).
I'd like to add my thanks. It was nice to see it there. In general I like the idea of choosing featured articles for the front page on the basis of anniversaries or current events, provided of course they aren't mentioned in one of the other sections. — Trilobite ( Talk) 06:39, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
Please look at the edit history of Wikipedia:Third opinion and specifically at this Diff. Please also look at my talk page and that of the other user involved. Am I out of line here? What is the proper action at this point. i think the other user involved is out of line, but I am trying to be sensible and not escalate further. DES 03:23, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
I'm requesting that this article be on the main page on Weds. July 27th. This isn't an anniversary or notable event related to the article in any way. Thanks. -- BRIAN 0918 14:45, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
Hi Mark,
Do you know who handles emailing out the daily Featured Article? Or more precisely, do you know how to satisfy the request at Wikipedia_talk:Picture_of_the_day#Can_we_have_a_POTD_by_email.3F. There's probably a number of issues around whether everyone would want it, of whether it should be a separate mailing list, whether images are inlined and would that push bandwidth up too much, etc. -- Solipsist 10:47, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
User:Unknown566, with the same pattern of nonsense edits to video game lists as User:216.83.121.194, User:Doctor33, User:68.32.159.227, and User:Shrek32. Could you help me get him blocked? Thx. jglc | t | c 13:58, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
I have created the stub articles you requsted, and I said you can show a photo of a person wearing the medal. However, I do not have a photo of the medal alone I could use that came from the Belarusian Government. That is why I made the drawing, so I can get around copyright issues. If there is anything you can think up of, let me know please. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 20:48, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
Hi Marc,
Can you take a look at the layouts at Talk:Main_Page#DYK_.2F_POTD_layout and see whether they cause any of the layout issues that briefly caused a problem last weekend. -- Solipsist 21:51, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
I've been tracking it myself for the last little while. -- Michael Snow 17:48, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
Your
Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for
featured picture status,
Image:Pangong lake by martinl.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates.
|
-- Solipsist 21:24, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
My statement about lies is the only statement I will provide until the requestor changes his presentation. I will answer your questions if you have any. Aloha. -- AI 23:06, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
Hi Raul, I was hoping you could expand on your comment in the FAC discussion for race and intelligence regarding a self-referential statement that was in the article intro. I think the statement (below) noting that the article conforms to mainstream opinion is useful to readers, as public awareness of the topic is generally from scientific-minority POVs. I'm not sure why the statement's self-referentiality is undesirable. Can you explain what you meant? Thanks, Nectarflowed T 07:22, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
Context:
Self-referential writing is a sentence that refers to the article in which it appears. For example, from
this version of the article - All such tests are often called "intelligence tests," though the term "intelligence" is controversial; in this article, "IQ test" denotes any test of cognitive ability. - it's a horrible writing style and should be avoided at all costs. Does that answer your question?
→Raul654 20:04, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
I think that
User:Deb has misused sysop privileges by protecting the page
Lady Catherine Grey after herself twice moving the article from its original location "Catherine Grey" to her this new location. She admits having done the protection, after her own second move (see
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk%3AJtdirl&diff=19381941&oldid=19331143). The renaming history is recent and is available easily at
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Lady_Catherine_Grey&action=history
My impression is that Deb deliberately and knowingly uses the admin power in this "content dispute" to push her own opinion onto others. The article had been in its old location for long time, apparently years. Its (first) renaming came only very recently, made by Deb. Rather disturbingly, Deb had not bothered to discuss her intention to move at the discussion
Talk:Catherine Grey before her first renaming (there was e.g no vote), and she did not properly discuss it even before her second move. (Relevant naming conventions are saying things that "Catherine Grey" is acceptable and the heading needs not necessarily be "Lady Catherine Grey": there are two conditions in naming convention for putting "lady", both requirements should be fulfilled. There is thus content dispute, and its outcome is actually not relevant to decide whether Deb abused the admin powers. I am for the old heading, and I believe it to be the more correct one.) One small point is that apparently Deb had not made any
contribution to the article before her renaming - this speaks of an editor who is focused on, not content of this article, but making her own version of form to prevail.
I have also earlier came to see Deb's actions and style of comments. She shows a pattern of not being capable of presenting reasons, and she seems to read policies and conventions in a loose manner, not fully grasping what such guideline actually says. Deb appears to not want to answer properly, substantively, to questions or to presented arguments, rather she gives sort of platitudes. An example is "...were agreed before you arrived" which implies an attempt to prevail by some sort of seniority (though, figuratively speaking, seniority could also be e.g senility).
Anyway, Deb's said action in protecting a page she had herself been warring over seems to be such a misuse that deserves some work. May I leave this matter to your capable hands in higher administration of WP.
217.140.193.123 10:28, 23
July 2005 (UTC)
I note that there are red links for the Air Force band items uploaded by your bot.
Bot problems? Copyright problems? Attitude problems over at the commons? I thought I'd at least bring it to your attention and offer to help.
I believe that it is a matter of time before there is a policy collision between En: and Commons. If nothing else, there are few commons sysops who are also active on En:. As a result, prompt response vandalism of images that are prominent on En: may become a problem. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 06:08, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
I left a note requesting Marshall, Texas be featured on the main page August 3, but have not recieved a reply. I need to know if it will be featured then, so I'll have time to clean up or create related articles. Please respond. Thanks. - JCarriker 06:40, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
I admire your patience in dealing with the ongoing "sneakiness" at AIDS.... but.... "AIDS is the result of infection with Human immunodeficiency virus is correct, and 'AIDS is the result of an infection of Human immunodeficiency virus' isn't. People are infected with a virus, or by a virus, but not of a virus. The second phrase implies that the virus is itself infected (and viruses sometimes are, by phages), and that's wrong for HIV. - Nunh-huh 05:28, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
Probably not worth worrying too much about until the interference with the article dies down, I just wanted to say that "of" really isn't idiomatic. - Nunh-huh 05:43, 25 July 2005 (UTC)AIDS (Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome or Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome) is a disease caused by the Human immunodeficiency virus ( HIV). HIV infection weakens the immune system, resulting in unusual infections and some rare cancers. Although treatments exist, there is no known cure for AIDS.
i appreciate your recent edits to this article. J. Parker Stone 21:32, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
(Regarding Template:Film-stub and Template:Multi-video start and template:video)
I like the old icon better. This one is bumpy on the edges and the old one wasn't. -- BRIAN 0918 21:36, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
I'm thinking about duplicating on the English Wikipedia a project from the German version, described here. Any objections? Also, any objections to users providing links on their user pages or on related article talk pages for such things as paypal donations, similar to "homework help" forums where answer-providers have links stating "if I have helped you, would you please consider saying thanks in the form of a paypal donation", only in this case, "if you feel my contributions have been useful, would you consider..." or on (for example) a featured article's talk page, "if you feel this article has been informative, would you consider..." (of course, inquiring minds would want to check the edit history to see if the user has contributed anything). This sounds like a good idea and it looks to be growing on the German site. It's sure to increase popularity and incentive for producing more and better content. -- BRIAN 0918 21:36, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
What about the other suggestion: users on their own pages or on article talk pages sticking a message with a link to paypal? I'd like to test it out to see what kind of response there would be :) BRIAN 0918 22:14, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
Oh lord. No, no, no! this kind of comment (basically pan-handling on the talk page) is not acceptable. It's one thing to offer a bounty if someone will write what you want; it's *very* different to use the talk pages to ask for it. The former is a controversial practice; the latter us utterly unacceptable. →Raul654 00:32, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
Alright, how about this for the project: we start out with the same setup, except that the only forms of reimbursement have no monetary value, so these could include requesting a featured article on topic X in exchange for a featured article on topic Y (this form of payment is popular on the German project), if not featured then of a quality that is examined after-the-fact by the requestor/community, or requesting a translation of article X from/to language A in exchange for a translation of article Y from/to language B (also popular on the German project), or giving various Wikithanks/Barnstars for the work. In the meantime, we can discuss the expansion to monetary trades on the talk page. --
BRIAN
0918 03:50, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
Hi Raul654,
Can you take a look at Commons:Commons:Administrators. The voting there appears to be almost inactive, and given that the window for nominations is 7 days, it could probably benefit from a little more attention. -- Solipsist 06:30, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
Sorry to walk into the middle of your conversation, but I've been blathering about the admin situation on commons for some time now to anyone who will listen. There is a potential vandalism problem brewing:
The Uninvited Co., Inc. 14:20, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
Hrmmmm..... →Raul654 17:49, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
Hello Raul654 please help me in wikipedia. i am not new to wikipedia but need help in editing that article.-- IDude 101 14:34, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
I see that you removed a tag from Democratic peace theory. I fear that Ultramarine can be a disruptive user, and articles near him tend to acquire tags. You should see Criticisms of communism, on which he has put three. :) Septentrionalis 20:38, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
Hi Raul. User:Frazzydee phoned me a little while ago to say that his router is broken and that he'll be on vacation until August 1, so he needs someone to send out the daily article until that date. Could you possibly run it? Today's article is pending, as his router broke before he could send it out today. Thanks, Yelyos 01:48, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
In order to save everyone time and so that AI can focus on the real world, AI has proposed a solution in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/AI#Remedies :D -- AI 01:57, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
Hi, Raul654! I'm so glad go be back! I'm so glad to see you're still here! I hope we can have a lot of fun helping each other out, buddy! Plautus satire 03:41, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
Raul654, I have not even been back 1 day and already you're threatening me on my talk page! I am in schock! I thought you were better than that! Shame on you, Raul654, I wish you hadn't threatened me on my talk page on my first day back! Plautus satire 03:52, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
Let's here it for collaboration! Yay! We can all work together! Woo hoo! Let's go, Raul654! No slackers! Plautus satire 04:17, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
Raul654, there's no reason to lie to get attention! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plautus satire ( talk • contribs) 04:47, 28 July 2005
And now, the show we've all been waiting for... Plautus Satire 2: Special Edition! I probably won't be around much for this one, as I seem to have acquired a job and some new hobbies since he last graced us with his presence. Isomorphic 04:45, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
Hi, Raul654! I'm so glad to be back! I can't wait to start correcting mistakes! Let's work together, buddy! Plautus satire 15:36, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
I already have, buddy! Check the mask article! Woo-hoo! My count is almost doubled by your reckoning! Plautus satire 16:03, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
Before getting to the substance of my comment, let me just thank you for all the work you've done for Wikipedia; users like you are such an asset to the project. I do have one minor critique to make, though... I noticed that you promoted Italian Renaissance to featured status, but at the time, I had an actionable (and in my view appropriate) objection. ( Candidate page, with my comments) I objected to elevation to featured status on the grounds that there are stylistic issues in the article, missing commas, etc. I went through the first half, but haven't had time to fix the second half. At any rate, you probably just didn't see my objection; I'll do more to address it myself, but the style isn't up to par for our (rightly) high standards for featured articles. -- Zantastik talk 17:51, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
Also,
this
should become this
Would you please weigh in on my "Latest attempt" at ending this edit war and unprotecting the page. Even Bensaccount, who has been the most opposed to all previous versions, seems to like it. -- BRIAN 0918 14:59, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
I just got this Wikipedia email from this person. He probably sent it to countless others as well:
I also received one:
-- cesarb 21:46, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
To all those above who have no idea what is going on, Plautus is a crackpot and troll who was forcefully thrown out of wikipedia about a year ago. This is not the first time that he got banned and emailed large numbers of people begging to be unbanned. I've catalogued the whole sordid affair of Plautus's existance at user:Raul654/Plautus. This was the primary evidence against him when the arbcom banned him for a year. →Raul654 00:28, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
He served out his ban in its entirety; no one is disputing that. But he started misbehaving almost the second he arrived back. I've updated user:Raul654/Plautus to include his recent misdeeds. →Raul654 05:21, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
Hi Raul—did you mean to place your reply to Everyking's statement at the bottom of the talk page, or would it be better off right under his ultimatum? I didn't want to move the comment for you, since it's on an arbitration page. TenOfAllTrades( talk) 20:45, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
Hey there, I'm wondering why you listed Suburbs of Johannesburg as a former featured article candidate. When I looked at the page, there were four supports, one neutral, and one object that is inactionable and he never responded to my questions. I fixed the problems with the image, I just wasn't near a computer to reply to his comments. So as far as I can see, it should have passed without a problem. Would you mind explaining? Thanks! Páll (Die pienk olifant) 04:22, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
I don't know if you will care, but User:Michel Jackson Fan made an addition to WP:RA intended to demean you: [14]. It has been removed. The only other edits from the account are to User talk:Lir, where he also made a personal attack against you, and which I see you already removed. Dragons flight 15:12, July 30, 2005 (UTC)
This is really starting to piss me off, so I'm sure you would like to hear about it :) We start out with List of victims of the 1913 Great Lakes storm and List of General Slocum victims. The latter was VFD'd from Wikipedia, where they said to move it to Wikisource or Commons (since Commons does accept text). So, the former was moved to Wikisource as well. Now they are currently up for deletion at Wikisource, where people say to move it to Wikipedia or Commons. So, in the interim, they've been copied over to Commons. Now they are currently up for deletion at Commons, where people say it should be on Wikisource or Wikipedia. Now, they clearly shouldn't be on Wikisource, since they are user-compiled lists. Where do you think they should be? -- BRIAN 0918 16:05, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
I have removed your nomination of TOCright from TFD on the grounds that it was kept with a 31 to 14 vote concluded just earlier this month: Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/TOCright. Further, unless something has changed, the MOS discussion also seems to have concluded that right-aligned TOCs were acceptable, albeit under limited circumstances: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Template:TOCright. Dragons flight 09:24, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
Hi, I see you have reverted the TOC to non floating, being left below the intro. In general I think this is a sound layout principle, but I floated left in this case for 2 reasons. Firstly, someone had positioned it floated right, which placed it below the opening image and (to my POV) made the article completely inaccessible for the casual reader, particularly those browsing with low screen resolutions: there is no indication of the depth of content. Secondly, the intro for the Tony Blair article is much too long to have the TOC below it, again for the same reasons.
I think that either the intro needs to be shortened or the TOC floated left to bring it into effective view.
What are your thoughts? -- Cactus.man 10:50, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
You had promoted Louisville just a few hours after I'd made some additional critique. I think you should have allowed the nominators to reply to them and only promote after a day's lull. There were some pending issues that needed to be sorted out such as non-encyclopedic tone and ill chosen words. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:55, July 31, 2005 (UTC)